# Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican



## Synthaholic

Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.









Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


----------



## Asclepias

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


Politcal views conservative and republican huh?


----------



## Synthaholic

I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.

Coincidence?
















































No.


----------



## Asclepias

How much do you want to bet that even though he is a self professed con some of the clowns on the board will make up every excuse to say why he was not up to and including some elaborate conspiracy theory?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual



Heh, just said in another thread it's more probable he's another disaffected white trash type.


----------



## Jroc

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual




I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Jroc said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
Click to expand...


Sounds like you're talking about Westboro.


----------



## Jroc

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're talking about Westboro.
Click to expand...

Have they killed anybody?


----------



## Meathead

Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

(posted 21 mins ago)

Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi's

"Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi’s

Chris Harper-Mercer, the gunman who went on Thursday’s rampage at an Oregon college, idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame.

“I have noticed that so many people like [Vester Lee Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a blog post, referring to the man who in August murdered a reporter and a cameraman on live TV in Virginia, according to CBS News.

“A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

He also showed interest in the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook school shootings, having recently shared documentaries about the massacres with people online.

A profile on an online dating site, Spiritual Passions, shows Harper-Mercer “doesn’t like organized religion.”

On his MySpace page, he posted a number of pictures related to the Irish Republican Army."

more at link

Nothing indicating any Islamic affiliation as of this.


----------



## PK1

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual



---
He was a "Lover" (of himself?) and an "Intellectual" ???
Talk about delusional.
.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Jroc said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're talking about Westboro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have they killed anybody?
Click to expand...


Depends how you define 'they'

Louisiana shooter openly admired Westboro Baptist Church and Hitler - Gay Star News

"Another tweet, dated the day before, supported the notoriously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church:

    The Westboro Baptist Church may be the last real church in America[members not brainwashed].

    — john russell houser (@jrustyhouser) June 5, 2013

The Church was quick to respond after the shooting: ‘Warming up the picket signs for #lafayettetheater shooting victim funerals.’

They believe the shooter was ‘sent’ by God to kill people who support same-sex marriage.

    2 more dead for SSM-enabling sins of flag-thumping proud sinning divorce-remarrying phony southern baptists! #pickethttps://t.co/tS4dECOGtp — Westboro Baptist (@WBCSaysRepent) July 25, 2015 "

If a Muslim 'inspired by IS' to carry out terror ops can be a 'member of IS' then this guy was a member of Westboro by the same logic.


----------



## Wyatt earp

I have a better idea...
Instead of playing the name games...

Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....


----------



## gtopa1

A punk conservative republican..................sounds a tad twisted already?? But no way can you determine what he's going to do on that basis.

I await the Coroner's Report and its findings. One thing is certain...the anti-gun lobby will be delighted with this!! Another opportunity to vilify anyone who owns a gun.

Greg


----------



## Missourian

I read that that account had been changed five times today according to Archive.org.

Also read Oregon SOS has him registered as an Independent.


----------



## candycorn

bear513 said:


> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....



What crap is that?


----------



## DarkFury

Jroc said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
Click to expand...

*He was a recent convert to islam.  See his picture and more here..
Islamic Dickhead Kills Ten, See His Pics | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
*


----------



## Delta4Embassy

And lest we forget, we used to like Islamic terrorists,

Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favoured by neighbouring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention[citation needed]. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[1] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[2] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]"

And because of this aid those we aided became the Taliban.


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
Click to expand...

Let me guess you want the killings to continue...


----------



## candycorn

bear513 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
Click to expand...

 
No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
Click to expand...


Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news 


What is your answer candy?

We have to stop them


----------



## S.J.

I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.


----------



## JQPublic1

S.J. said:


> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.


Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.


----------



## gtopa1

Missourian said:


> I read that that account had been changed five times today according to Archive.org.
> 
> Also read Oregon SOS has him registered as an Independent.
> 
> View attachment 51267



I don't think he is at all "Active" now....the maggot!! But do you really expect "the left" to be honest about the scum?? 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

JQPublic1 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
Click to expand...


"Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!! BOTH ARE GUN NUTS....as in "NUTS"!!

Greg


----------



## barryqwalsh

A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!


Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
*Join the conversation:*
Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850

Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio

AUDIO
LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM


----------



## JQPublic1

gtopa1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV


----------



## HUGGY

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual



Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.  

Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.  

Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.

Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.

Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.


----------



## gtopa1

JQPublic1 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
Click to expand...


As in "bottom of the barrel" journalism!! Ridiculous!!

Greg


----------



## DigitalDrifter

The OP is a photoshop and is a lie,  and this thread should be deleted or moved.
Here's the actual page:





Oregon community college gunman sympathized with Va. TV shooter, shared Newtown school shooting documentary


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.



Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats


----------



## gtopa1

HUGGY said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
Click to expand...


Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just don't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many forms; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.

Greg


----------



## HUGGY

gtopa1 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".


----------



## Penelope

Meathead said:


> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.



There aren't any purebreds left, maybe some Native Indians, but we are all mixed races.


----------



## Penelope

DarkFury said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *He was a recent convert to islam.  See his picture and more here..
> Islamic Dickhead Kills Ten, See His Pics | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
Click to expand...


So what if he was , also you have no proof of that.


----------



## gtopa1

Penelope said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any purebreds left, maybe some Native Indians, but we are all mixed races.
Click to expand...


What?? I'm 100% pure Aussie!! 

Greg


----------



## JQPublic1

gtopa1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As in "bottom of the barrel" journalism!! Ridiculous!!
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


The texas tower killer, Charles Whitman didn't think it was ridiculous... Focus on that.


----------



## JQPublic1

gtopa1 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any purebreds left, maybe some Native Indians, but we are all mixed races.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?? I'm 100% pure Aussie!!
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

I thought there was something Kangarooish about you...You jump all over the place. Heh heh heh!


----------



## gtopa1

HUGGY said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
Click to expand...


You are WRONG!! Conservatives are merely being judicious in what they consider "better". That is what research is for! And we are not suckered by ANY new fangled idea just because someone considers it superior!! It has to be better faster cheaper!!

Greg


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Why are you guys continuing to post in a thread that is a lie ?


----------



## HUGGY

gtopa1 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are WRONG!! Conservatives are merely being judicious in what they consider "better". That is what research is for! And we are not suckered by ANY new fangled idea just because someone considers it superior!! It has to be better faster cheaper!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Greg
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


Wrong.  The first Christians were suckered by a guy called Jesus.


----------



## gtopa1

JQPublic1 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any purebreds left, maybe some Native Indians, but we are all mixed races.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?? I'm 100% pure Aussie!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought there was something Kangarooish about you...You jump all over the place. Heh heh heh!
Click to expand...


I like Skipping about!! 


But I am not a Republican; I'm a Constitutional Monarchist. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

DigitalDrifter said:


> Why are you guys continuing to post in a thread that is a lie ?



Fun value??

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

JQPublic1 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As in "bottom of the barrel" journalism!! Ridiculous!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The texas tower killer, Charles Whitman didn't think it was ridiculous... Focus on that.
Click to expand...


Guns were readily available well before Whitman. So what has changed??

Greg


----------



## Esmeralda

Jroc said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
Click to expand...


LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.


----------



## gtopa1

HUGGY said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are WRONG!! Conservatives are merely being judicious in what they consider "better". That is what research is for! And we are not suckered by ANY new fangled idea just because someone considers it superior!! It has to be better faster cheaper!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The first Christians were suckered by a guy called Jesus.
Click to expand...


THAT RADICAL!! Wealth is but filth and dirt: love thy neighbour,..when they are really your biggest threat!, do good to those who wrong you.! etc etc...sounds quite radical to me.

Greg


----------



## JQPublic1

gtopa1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As in "bottom of the barrel" journalism!! Ridiculous!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The texas tower killer, Charles Whitman didn't think it was ridiculous... Focus on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns were readily available well before Whitman. So what has changed??
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

We are not talking about gun availability, we are talking about mass murder by conservative republicans, which most Marines are. There seems to be at least a modicum of a connection...stop deflecting.  Jut saying.... not all mass killers are Marines but  they do seem to have ties to extreme right wing affiliates.


----------



## gtopa1

Esmeralda said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
Click to expand...


The word is that it's a fake; why would anyone want to fake a mass murderer's profile?? Sounds something that a liberal minded progressive would do.

Greg


----------



## Mac1958

It's all over the place.  Conservative Republican, IRA, shooting people for being Christian.

I saw one story where he's been talking about doing this for years.

We'll find out soon enough.

I want to know where and how he got the guns.
.


----------



## gtopa1

JQPublic1 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As in "bottom of the barrel" journalism!! Ridiculous!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The texas tower killer, Charles Whitman didn't think it was ridiculous... Focus on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns were readily available well before Whitman. So what has changed??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about gun availability, we are talking about mass murder by conservative republicans, which most Marines are. There seems to be at least a modicum of a connection...stop deflecting.  Jut saying.... not all mass killers are Marines but  they do seem to have ties to extreme right wing affiliates.
Click to expand...


That has been said before and found wanting in accuracy. You got some actual data on that?? Not many marines are Le Pens that I know of!!

Greg


----------



## Esmeralda

gtopa1 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is that it's a fake; why would anyone want to fake a mass murderer's profile?? Sounds something that a liberal minded progressive would do.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

The word is 'it's a fake' because conservatives want it to be a fake. Most likely it is not a fake at all, but you all want it to be, so will spread the falsity that  it is.  Sad, very sad.


----------



## Esmeralda

Mac1958 said:


> *It's all over the place.  Conservative Republican, IRA, shooting people for being Christian.
> 
> I saw one story where he's been talking about doing this for years.*
> 
> We'll find out soon enough.
> 
> I want to know where and how he got the guns.
> .


Deserves to be repeated.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

gtopa1 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are WRONG!! Conservatives are merely being judicious in what they consider "better". That is what research is for! And we are not suckered by ANY new fangled idea just because someone considers it superior!! It has to be better faster cheaper!!
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong.

Conservatives are, for the most part, hostile to, and fearful of, change, diversity, and dissent.

Conservatives aren't being 'judicious,' they're being wrongheaded ideologues adhering blindly to failed conservative dogma, exhibiting disdain for the facts and truth which conflict with that errant dogma.


----------



## gtopa1

Esmeralda said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
Click to expand...


DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are WRONG!! Conservatives are merely being judicious in what they consider "better". That is what research is for! And we are not suckered by ANY new fangled idea just because someone considers it superior!! It has to be better faster cheaper!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're wrong.
> 
> Conservatives are, for the most part, hostile to, and fearful of, change, diversity, and dissent.
> 
> Conservatives aren't being 'judicious,' they're being wrongheaded ideologues adhering blindly to failed conservative dogma, exhibiting disdain for the facts and truth which conflict with that errant dogma.
Click to expand...


Nope. I've heard a lot of "new" things that ended up being cons....albeit not always deliberately. If one dives in head first then one is likely to land in shallow waters. Not a great facial treatment.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are WRONG!! Conservatives are merely being judicious in what they consider "better". That is what research is for! And we are not suckered by ANY new fangled idea just because someone considers it superior!! It has to be better faster cheaper!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're wrong.
> 
> Conservatives are, for the most part, hostile to, and fearful of, change, diversity, and dissent.
> 
> Conservatives aren't being 'judicious,' they're being wrongheaded ideologues adhering blindly to failed conservative dogma, exhibiting disdain for the facts and truth which conflict with that errant dogma.
Click to expand...



If it was a FAILED dogma then it would hardly be what a conservative would value. No one is more analytical than a conservative!!

Greg


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Esmeralda said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is that it's a fake; why would anyone want to fake a mass murderer's profile?? Sounds something that a liberal minded progressive would do.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word is 'it's a fake' because conservatives want it to be a fake. Most likely it is not a fake at all, but you all want it to be, so will spread the falsity that  it is.  Sad, very sad.
Click to expand...


It's fake because it's fake.

Clearly he was influence by Obama one on one with the Clock Boy Junior Jihadists than by anything Conservative


----------



## gtopa1

HUGGY said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
Click to expand...


Well I definitely value what I accept. That it took a great deal of thought and judgement to accept what I do is just a case in point.

Greg


----------



## Esmeralda

gtopa1 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Who the hell is dd?


----------



## gtopa1

Shooting in Sydney. US GUN LAWS TO BLAME!!!!!!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NOT!!!

Greg


----------



## Esmeralda

CrusaderFrank said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is that it's a fake; why would anyone want to fake a mass murderer's profile?? Sounds something that a liberal minded progressive would do.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word is 'it's a fake' because conservatives want it to be a fake. Most likely it is not a fake at all, but you all want it to be, so will spread the falsity that  it is.  Sad, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fake because it's fake.
> 
> Clearly he was influence by Obama one on one with the Clock Boy Junior Jihadists than by anything Conservative
Click to expand...


----------



## gtopa1

Esmeralda said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell is dd?
Click to expand...


A previous poster. DigitalDrifter

Greg


----------



## Esmeralda

gtopa1 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell is dd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A previous poster. DigitalDrifter
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

LOL


----------



## Votto

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.



Ever hear of the Unibomber?  He sat in a cabin in Montana making bombs to send to corporate CEO's in an effort to take out those who were ignoring climate change concerns.  He had a stack of Al Gore books a mile high under his bed.  LOL.

The bottom line is, this freak in the OP was asking people if they were Christians or not and then shooting them if they were.

The same thing happened at Colombine High School which was one of the first school shootings that made this kind of terrorism possible.  There was also the racist dude in South Carolina who shot up Christians at a local church.

This is really about religious hate crimes and nothing more.


----------



## skookerasbil

Hmmmm...........what a surprise to wake up and see a thread like this started by this faggy progressive coward!!


ghey


----------



## JQPublic1

gtopa1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in "bottom of the barrel" journalism!! Ridiculous!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The texas tower killer, Charles Whitman didn't think it was ridiculous... Focus on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns were readily available well before Whitman. So what has changed??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about gun availability, we are talking about mass murder by conservative republicans, which most Marines are. There seems to be at least a modicum of a connection...stop deflecting.  Jut saying.... not all mass killers are Marines but  they do seem to have ties to extreme right wing affiliates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has been said before and found wanting in accuracy. You got some actual data on that?? Not many marines are Le Pens that I know of!!
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Dayum, son, I just gave you Charles Whiteman, do I have to List all the killers who were veterans or active duty perps, too? Too much work...you can google it yourself!


----------



## gtopa1

Esmeralda said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell is dd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A previous poster. DigitalDrifter
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


The Guardian is carrying the conservative republican thingy so can't really account for DD's source.

Oregon community college gunman sympathized with Va. TV shooter, shared Newtown school shooting documentary

You got further info then by all means add your two cents worth.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

JQPublic1 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As in "bottom of the barrel" journalism!! Ridiculous!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The texas tower killer, Charles Whitman didn't think it was ridiculous... Focus on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns were readily available well before Whitman. So what has changed??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about gun availability, we are talking about mass murder by conservative republicans, which most Marines are. There seems to be at least a modicum of a connection...stop deflecting.  Jut saying.... not all mass killers are Marines but  they do seem to have ties to extreme right wing affiliates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has been said before and found wanting in accuracy. You got some actual data on that?? Not many marines are Le Pens that I know of!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dayum, son, I just gave you Charles Whiteman, do I have to List all the killers who were veterans or active duty perps, too? Too much work...you can google it yourself!
Click to expand...


I looked up "Marines" and "right wing groups".......ZERO so far. You saying Forest Gump was Right Wing?? lol

Greg


----------



## JQPublic1

gtopa1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The texas tower killer, Charles Whitman didn't think it was ridiculous... Focus on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns were readily available well before Whitman. So what has changed??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about gun availability, we are talking about mass murder by conservative republicans, which most Marines are. There seems to be at least a modicum of a connection...stop deflecting.  Jut saying.... not all mass killers are Marines but  they do seem to have ties to extreme right wing affiliates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has been said before and found wanting in accuracy. You got some actual data on that?? Not many marines are Le Pens that I know of!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dayum, son, I just gave you Charles Whiteman, do I have to List all the killers who were veterans or active duty perps, too? Too much work...you can google it yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked up "Marines" and "right wing groups".......ZERO so far. You saying Forest Gump was Right Wing?? lol
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Look up Marine murderers or something like that.... you'll get a hit that applies....good luck...


----------



## mudwhistle

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.


Probably because Democrats lie alot.


----------



## mudwhistle

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


How do you control guns.

If you want to control legal gun owners, you create stiffer gun-laws.
If you want to control criminals....you create stiffer punishment when they commit the crime.
You don't let criminals out of prison.
You don't create hate for any particular groups.
You don't go on national television and comment about a mass-shooting before you know what the facts are in the case.
And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.


----------



## theHawk

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual



And murderers don't lie right?

Since when are "mixed race" Christian haters that have Muslims friends "conservatives"?

You idiots just want to believe he is a conservative.


----------



## Synthaholic

Delta4Embassy said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, just said in another thread it's more probable he's another disaffected white trash type.
Click to expand...

And you were correct!


----------



## Synthaholic

Jroc said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
Click to expand...

Wait a minute - I thought I was a "Jew-hater"?  

Make up your mind, Conservative Republican!


----------



## Synthaholic

Delta4Embassy said:


> Louisiana shooter openly admired Westboro Baptist Church and Hitler - Gay Star News
> 
> "Another tweet, dated the day before, supported the notoriously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church:
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church may be the last real church in America[members not brainwashed].
> 
> — *john russell houser (@jrustyhouser)* June 5, 2013


John Russell Houser: another proud USMessageboard Conservative Republican!


----------



## Synthaholic

bear513 said:


> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> *Let's us pray* for the victim's this crap has to stop....


Oh, yeah - that always does a lot of good.


----------



## Synthaholic

gtopa1 said:


> A punk conservative republican..................sounds a tad twisted already??


Aren't they all?


----------



## Synthaholic

Missourian said:


> I read that that account had been changed five times today according to Archive.org.
> 
> Also read Oregon SOS has him registered as an Independent.
> 
> View attachment 51267


I'm a registered Independent, even though I'm a Liberal Democrat.

It's a strategy, unlike a dating profile where you are looking for compatible people.


----------



## Dan Daly

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.



No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.


----------



## Synthaholic

Delta4Embassy said:


> And lest we forget, we used to like Islamic terrorists,
> 
> Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favoured by neighbouring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention[citation needed]. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[1] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[2] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]"
> 
> And because of this aid those we aided became the Taliban.


Well, that was doddering Reagan - he ran a criminal administrations and armed terrorists in Afghanistan and Latin America and America's enemy Iran.

A true anti-American.


----------



## Politico

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


You are an idiot.


----------



## Synthaholic

DigitalDrifter said:


> The OP is a photoshop and is a lie,  and this thread should be deleted or moved.
> Here's the actual page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon community college gunman sympathized with Va. TV shooter, shared Newtown school shooting documentary


Nice try, wingnut.  



Why is it cut off right above political affiliation?


----------



## August West

If the shooter was black it would be "black lives matter" that made him do this, or Obama or Holder or Sharpton in no particular order and no particular logic. If it was a Muslim it would be because of Obama`s secret muslimicity. Whenever it is not a black or a muslim it`s the shooter`s fault no matter how many Hitler photos he had or dildos with rebel flag insignias. And who cares if he had 3 hand guns AND an assault weapon and was bearing body armor. He could just as easily killed them with a teaspoon. When are the liberals going to ban teaspoons?


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats
Click to expand...

Stop your lying, Frank, or you'll go to hell.

A Fascist by definition cannot be a Liberal Democrat.


----------



## Synthaholic

gtopa1 said:


> Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED.


It's demonstrated every day in Scandinavia.


----------



## Synthaholic

Penelope said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any purebreds left, maybe some Native Indians, but we are all mixed races.
Click to expand...

I sometimes get Jungle Fever.


----------



## Synthaholic

gtopa1 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any purebreds left, maybe some Native Indians, but we are all mixed races.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?? I'm 100% pure Aussie!!
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Then you SHOULD be aware that after the first mass murder in Australia, they instituted strong gun control and have never had another mass shooting.


----------



## Synthaholic

DigitalDrifter said:


> Why are you guys continuing to post in a thread that is a lie ?


Nobody's buying your bullshit, wingnut.


----------



## Synthaholic

gtopa1 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

DD is a confirmed liar.


----------



## Synthaholic

gtopa1 said:


> No one is more analytical than a conservative!!


Is that why conservatives defer to scientists on climate change?

Oh, wait . . .


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's fake because it's fake.


It's only a fake because you desperately need for it to be a fake.

Your ideology has failed miserably and you're losing your grip.  On so many things!


----------



## Synthaholic

Votto said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the Unibomber?  He sat in a cabin in Montana making bombs to send to corporate CEO's in an effort to take out those who were ignoring climate change concerns.  He had a stack of Al Gore books a mile high under his bed.  LOL.
> 
> The bottom line is, this freak in the OP was asking people if they were Christians or not and then shooting them if they were.
> 
> The same thing happened at Colombine High School which was one of the first school shootings that made this kind of terrorism possible.  There was also the racist dude in South Carolina who shot up Christians at a local church.
> 
> This is really about religious hate crimes and nothing more.
Click to expand...

You're such a liar.  Link to the Al Gore books.

The racist dude - get that? - RACIST dude shot up a bunch of Blacks.  He didn't go to a White church, did he?

Once again, you are no match for me, kid.


----------



## Synthaholic

mudwhistle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because Democrats lie alot.
Click to expand...

Hey mud - there's some kids on your lawn.


----------



## Synthaholic

mudwhistle said:


> If you want to control legal gun owners, you create stiffer gun-laws.


OK - stop supporting the NRA.  They fight against stiffer gun laws.


----------



## Synthaholic

mudwhistle said:


> If you want to control criminals....you create stiffer punishment when they commit the crime.


How does that work for the Vesper Flanagan types, or this guy, who plan on killing themselves or death by cop if they are in danger of being apprehended?


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....


OK. I agree. We have to stop this insanity. Ideas? Other than more guns. That obviously is not working.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Esmeralda said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
Click to expand...


  You'll fall for anything....


----------



## Synthaholic

mudwhistle said:


> You don't let criminals out of prison.


We don't.  We don't even let non-violent minor crime criminals out of prison if it was a 3rd strike.

You should try to see the Vice special on HBO about prisons.  It's pretty eye-opening what some guys are in for - for life.


----------



## Synthaholic

mudwhistle said:


> You don't create hate for any particular groups.


You first - stop hating Liberals.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Esmeralda said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell is dd?
Click to expand...


  Those D's should be capitalized.


----------



## Sallow

Votto said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the Unibomber?  He sat in a cabin in Montana making bombs to send to corporate CEO's in an effort to take out those who were ignoring climate change concerns.  He had a stack of Al Gore books a mile high under his bed.  LOL.
> 
> The bottom line is, this freak in the OP was asking people if they were Christians or not and then shooting them if they were.
> 
> The same thing happened at Colombine High School which was one of the first school shootings that made this kind of terrorism possible.  There was also the racist dude in South Carolina who shot up Christians at a local church.
> 
> This is really about religious hate crimes and nothing more.
Click to expand...


Christians and Muslims have the curious habit of killing each other if they are not the same "order". Catholics have famous made war on Protestants and Sunni have done the same with Shai. And everyone hates the Jews.

All the big three worship from the same books.

It's a pretty silly thing.


----------



## Synthaholic

mudwhistle said:


> And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.


Why are they mutually exclusive?  Islamists by definition are conservative.

And if I posted in some other regular thread about how all conservatives were wacko Christians you would be yelling that I'm stereotyping, and that not all conservatives are religious.


----------



## Esmeralda

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell is dd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those D's should be capitalized.
Click to expand...


----------



## Synthaholic

theHawk said:


> And murderers don't lie right?


He wasn't a murderer when he was searching for a woman who shared his interests, you fucking idiot.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Esmeralda said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DD says it's a photoshop fraud. Now your argument is??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell is dd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those D's should be capitalized.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


   Stealing my stuff now huh?


----------



## Synthaholic

Dan Daly said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
Click to expand...

OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.


----------



## Synthaholic

Politico said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
Click to expand...

For exposing that he was a conservative Republican?

Well...ok.


----------



## Synthaholic

August West said:


> If the shooter was black it would be "black lives matter" that made him do this, or Obama or Holder or Sharpton in no particular order and no particular logic. If it was a Muslim it would be because of Obama`s secret muslimicity. Whenever it is not a black or a muslim it`s the shooter`s fault no matter how many Hitler photos he had or dildos with rebel flag insignias. And who cares if he had 3 hand guns AND an assault weapon and was bearing body armor. He could just as easily killed them with a teaspoon. When are the liberals going to ban teaspoons?


_"Today a man strangled 30 people to death in a crowded mall before turning his hands on himself"_

^^^ Headline you'll never see.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

bear513 said:


> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....




Its good to see a rabid RW FINALLY mention the victims but prayer without action is useless folly.  Saying "this crap has to stop" is also useless. 

Fact is, Americans want ACTION but money talks, NRA wants to sell more guns and their client base is perfectly described in the OP.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Synthaholic said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana shooter openly admired Westboro Baptist Church and Hitler - Gay Star News
> 
> "Another tweet, dated the day before, supported the notoriously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church:
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church may be the last real church in America[members not brainwashed].
> 
> — *john russell houser (@jrustyhouser)* June 5, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> John Russell Houser: another proud USMessageboard Conservative Republican!
Click to expand...



There are quite a few posters here who sound like they're one post away from opening fire.


----------



## Ravi

DigitalDrifter said:


> The OP is a photoshop and is a lie,  and this thread should be deleted or moved.
> Here's the actual page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon community college gunman sympathized with Va. TV shooter, shared Newtown school shooting documentary


Yours is the one photoshopped. You've cut off the last several lines.


----------



## Synthaholic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana shooter openly admired Westboro Baptist Church and Hitler - Gay Star News
> 
> "Another tweet, dated the day before, supported the notoriously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church:
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church may be the last real church in America[members not brainwashed].
> 
> — *john russell houser (@jrustyhouser)* June 5, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> John Russell Houser: another proud USMessageboard Conservative Republican!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few posters here who sound like they're one post away from opening fire.
Click to expand...

But that guy Houser was actually a poster here at USMB.


----------



## mudwhistle

Synthaholic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they mutually exclusive?  Islamists by definition are conservative.
> 
> And if I posted in some other regular thread about how all conservatives were wacko Christians you would be yelling that I'm stereotyping, and that not all conservatives are religious.
Click to expand...

Muslim  sympathizers tend to be leftists.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Votto said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the Unibomber?  He sat in a cabin in Montana making bombs to send to corporate CEO's in an effort to take out those who were ignoring climate change concerns.  He had a stack of Al Gore books a mile high under his bed.  LOL.
> 
> The bottom line is, this freak in the OP was asking people if they were Christians or not and then shooting them if they were.
> 
> The same thing happened at Colombine High School which was one of the first school shootings that made this kind of terrorism possible.  There was also the racist dude in South Carolina who shot up Christians at a local church.
> 
> This is really about religious hate crimes and nothing more.
Click to expand...


_"This is really about religious hate crimes and nothing more."_

Obviously, you don't know that but you're welcome to your opinion. 

Fact is, its the rabid right that is willing and even wants to commit violence.  If you don't know or believe that, read the gun threads here.  Its also the rabid right ideology that attracts mentally ill people like this guy.


----------



## Slyhunter

barryqwalsh said:


> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM


It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Synthaholic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana shooter openly admired Westboro Baptist Church and Hitler - Gay Star News
> 
> "Another tweet, dated the day before, supported the notoriously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church:
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church may be the last real church in America[members not brainwashed].
> 
> — *john russell houser (@jrustyhouser)* June 5, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> John Russell Houser: another proud USMessageboard Conservative Republican!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few posters here who sound like they're one post away from opening fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that guy Houser was actually a poster here at USMB.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's why I said that there are posters here who sound like they're barely in control of their anger. This board attracts people like Houser and this shooter. 

I should have included the word "other".


----------



## Sallow

Slyhunter said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
Click to expand...


That's incorrect.

UPDATE OCT 1, 2015 8:09 PM

The conservative site Breitbart and others assert that guns were banned at UCC. This is not true. The student code of conduct bans guns "without written authorization." Under Oregon law, the university could not ban people with a valid concealed carry license from bringing their weapons on campus. (They could ban gun from various buildings and facilities.) Conservative writer Dana Loesch, who initially claimed the campus was a "gun free zone," updated her article to clarify that individuals with concealed carry permits were allowed to bring guns on campus. 

There was, in fact, someone on campus with a concealed carry weapon at the time of the massacre. A local reporter explained to CNN that it was legal for him to have such a weapon on campus.


UCC Was Not A ‘Gun Free Zone’ Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can’t Ban Guns


----------



## Dan Daly

Synthaholic said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
Click to expand...


Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it. 

Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists. 

Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.

Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter

Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.

James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.

Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.

Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.

Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.

Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner

and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.


----------



## Ravi

Sallow said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.
> 
> UPDATE OCT 1, 2015 8:09 PM
> 
> The conservative site Breitbart and others assert that guns were banned at UCC. This is not true. The student code of conduct bans guns "without written authorization." Under Oregon law, the university could not ban people with a valid concealed carry license from bringing their weapons on campus. (They could ban gun from various buildings and facilities.) Conservative writer Dana Loesch, who initially claimed the campus was a "gun free zone," updated her article to clarify that individuals with concealed carry permits were allowed to bring guns on campus.
> 
> There was, in fact, someone on campus with a concealed carry weapon at the time of the massacre. A local reporter explained to CNN that it was legal for him to have such a weapon on campus.
> 
> 
> UCC Was Not A ‘Gun Free Zone’ Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can’t Ban Guns
Click to expand...

So the real problem is that 300 million guns are floating around the country, which it makes it extremely easy for nuts and criminals to get them.


----------



## mudwhistle

Synthaholic said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the shooter was black it would be "black lives matter" that made him do this, or Obama or Holder or Sharpton in no particular order and no particular logic. If it was a Muslim it would be because of Obama`s secret muslimicity. Whenever it is not a black or a muslim it`s the shooter`s fault no matter how many Hitler photos he had or dildos with rebel flag insignias. And who cares if he had 3 hand guns AND an assault weapon and was bearing body armor. He could just as easily killed them with a teaspoon. When are the liberals going to ban teaspoons?
> 
> 
> 
> _"Today a man strangled 30 people to death in a crowded mall before turning his hands on himself"_
> 
> ^^^ Headline you'll never see.
Click to expand...

When you take  all of our guns....will you come for our knives, axes, box-cutters, and our pressure-cookers next?

Taking our guns isn't going to stop violence. Inflammatory rhetoric  used by the PC crowd....end that and you might see some progress. 

Law enforcement  experts say that the best way to control law-abiding citizens  is through gun confiscation. The best way to control  gun violence is through stiffer punishment. Most criminals  who use guns are repeat offenders. Get them off the streets and crime goes down. Nope...not gonna happen. That's  racist. What they will do is politicize every mass shooting on a college campus. Not on military  installations. Just the ones in schools.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Slyhunter said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
Click to expand...



There was.

The college forgot to put up a sign saying: 

*Crazy Mass Shooter - Enter here because this is where the armed guard is. *


----------



## Buzz Jenkins

Delta4Embassy said:


> (posted 21 mins ago)
> 
> Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi's
> 
> "Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi’s
> 
> Chris Harper-Mercer, the gunman who went on Thursday’s rampage at an Oregon college, idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame.
> 
> “I have noticed that so many people like [Vester Lee Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a blog post, referring to the man who in August murdered a reporter and a cameraman on live TV in Virginia, according to CBS News.
> 
> “A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”
> 
> He also showed interest in the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook school shootings, having recently shared documentaries about the massacres with people online.
> 
> A profile on an online dating site, Spiritual Passions, shows Harper-Mercer “doesn’t like organized religion.”
> 
> On his MySpace page, he posted a number of pictures related to the Irish Republican Army."
> 
> more at link
> 
> Nothing indicating any Islamic affiliation as of this.



Does MySpace still exist?!?


----------



## Synthaholic

mudwhistle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they mutually exclusive?  Islamists by definition are conservative.
> 
> And if I posted in some other regular thread about how all conservatives were wacko Christians you would be yelling that I'm stereotyping, and that not all conservatives are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslim  sympathizers tend to be leftists.
Click to expand...

That's laughably false.

Muslims are conservative in every way.  How do they treat women?  They make them dress conservatively, they give them no rights, they don't allow them to drive.  How do they feel about the modern world?  They hate it, and do not allow alcohol, popular music, dancing, etc.

Not Liberal.


----------



## mudwhistle

Buzz Jenkins said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> (posted 21 mins ago)
> 
> Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi's
> 
> "Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi’s
> 
> Chris Harper-Mercer, the gunman who went on Thursday’s rampage at an Oregon college, idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame.
> 
> “I have noticed that so many people like [Vester Lee Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a blog post, referring to the man who in August murdered a reporter and a cameraman on live TV in Virginia, according to CBS News.
> 
> “A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”
> 
> He also showed interest in the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook school shootings, having recently shared documentaries about the massacres with people online.
> 
> A profile on an online dating site, Spiritual Passions, shows Harper-Mercer “doesn’t like organized religion.”
> 
> On his MySpace page, he posted a number of pictures related to the Irish Republican Army."
> 
> more at link
> 
> Nothing indicating any Islamic affiliation as of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does MySpace still exist?!?
Click to expand...

Yes....but he's a loner......so.....


----------



## Luddly Neddite

mudwhistle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the shooter was black it would be "black lives matter" that made him do this, or Obama or Holder or Sharpton in no particular order and no particular logic. If it was a Muslim it would be because of Obama`s secret muslimicity. Whenever it is not a black or a muslim it`s the shooter`s fault no matter how many Hitler photos he had or dildos with rebel flag insignias. And who cares if he had 3 hand guns AND an assault weapon and was bearing body armor. He could just as easily killed them with a teaspoon. When are the liberals going to ban teaspoons?
> 
> 
> 
> _"Today a man strangled 30 people to death in a crowded mall before turning his hands on himself"_
> 
> ^^^ Headline you'll never see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you take  all of our guns....will you come for our knives, axes, box-cutters, and our pressure-cookers next?
> 
> Taking our guns isn't going to stop violence. Inflammatory rhetoric  used by the PC crowd....end that and you might see some progress.
> 
> Law enforcement  experts say that the best way to control law-abiding citizens  is through gun confiscation. The best way to control  gun violence is through stiffer punishment. Most criminals  who use guns are repeat offenders. Get them off the streets and crime goes down. Nope...not gonna happen. That's  racist. What they will do is politicize every mass shooting on a college campus. Not on military  installations. Just the ones in schools.
Click to expand...



As usual, its the rabid right that uses "inflammatory rhetoric" and outright lies.  

Its always the nutters who talk about banning.


----------



## mudwhistle

Synthaholic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they mutually exclusive?  Islamists by definition are conservative.
> 
> And if I posted in some other regular thread about how all conservatives were wacko Christians you would be yelling that I'm stereotyping, and that not all conservatives are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslim  sympathizers tend to be leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> Muslims are conservative in every way.  How do they treat women?  They make them dress conservatively, they give them no rights, they don't allow them to drive.  How do they feel about the modern world?  They hate it, and do not allow alcohol, popular music, dancing, etc.
> 
> Not Liberal.
Click to expand...

Thus the outright insanity of leftist rhetoric supporting Islam.


----------



## Synthaholic

Slyhunter said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
Click to expand...

There were plenty of people there with concealed carry.

You should try turning on the news, or reading a news site.


----------



## Synthaholic

Dan Daly said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Click to expand...

No links.  Why am I not shocked?

Easily countered, also:  Ron Reagan is a Liberal Democrat, although I _think_ his parents were registered Republicans.

Jared Loughner shot a Liberal Democrat - he wasn't one himself.  He got his inspiration from wingnut crazy Sarah Palin's target ad.

That's just two.


----------



## Jroc

Synthaholic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they mutually exclusive?  Islamists by definition are conservative.
> 
> And if I posted in some other regular thread about how all conservatives were wacko Christians you would be yelling that I'm stereotyping, and that not all conservatives are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslim  sympathizers tend to be leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> Muslims are conservative in every way.  How do they treat women?  They make them dress conservatively, they give them no rights, they don't allow them to drive.  How do they feel about the modern world?  They hate it, and do not allow alcohol, popular music, dancing, etc.
> 
> Not Liberal.
Click to expand...

really? Radical muslims are big government tyrants, who want to control peoples lives. They are anti liberty anti -constitutional conservative you pea brain. You're such a small, little man and one of the dumbest posters on the board.


----------



## Dan Daly

Synthaholic said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No links.  Why am I not shocked?
> 
> Easily countered, also:  Ron Reagan is a Liberal Democrat, although I _think_ his parents were registered Republicans.
> 
> Jared Loughner shot a Liberal Democrat - he wasn't one himself.  He got his inspiration from wingnut crazy Sarah Palin's target ad.
> 
> That's just two.
Click to expand...


Using your logic...no links and just two?  Oops, hoisted by your own petard.  

Do your own homework you willfully ignorant wussie...typical liberal, has to have everyone else do everything for him.  The smoker analogy fits your lazy dumb ass perfectly.


----------



## Dan Daly

Synthaholic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they mutually exclusive?  Islamists by definition are conservative.
> 
> And if I posted in some other regular thread about how all conservatives were wacko Christians you would be yelling that I'm stereotyping, and that not all conservatives are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslim  sympathizers tend to be leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> Muslims are conservative in every way.  How do they treat women?  They make them dress conservatively, they give them no rights, they don't allow them to drive.  How do they feel about the modern world?  They hate it, and do not allow alcohol, popular music, dancing, etc.
> 
> Not Liberal.
Click to expand...


Now i see your problem...just like most ignorant hics your knowledge is limited to wacky stereotypes.  hey, all blacks are liberals too, right. dipsht?


----------



## Jroc

Dan Daly said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't post that the shooter was a right-winger when the shooter was actually a Christian hating Muslim sympathizer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they mutually exclusive?  Islamists by definition are conservative.
> 
> And if I posted in some other regular thread about how all conservatives were wacko Christians you would be yelling that I'm stereotyping, and that not all conservatives are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslim  sympathizers tend to be leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> Muslims are conservative in every way.  How do they treat women?  They make them dress conservatively, they give them no rights, they don't allow them to drive.  How do they feel about the modern world?  They hate it, and do not allow alcohol, popular music, dancing, etc.
> 
> Not Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now i see your problem...just like most ignorant hics your knowledge is limited to wacky stereotypes.  hey, all blacks are liberals too, right. dipsht?
Click to expand...



He's just stupid. He gets his liberals taking points from move on and media matters then runs with it. You're asking too much of this guy if you expect him to actually think for himself


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

DarkFury said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He was a recent convert to islam.  See his picture and more here..
> Islamic Dickhead Kills Ten, See His Pics | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
Click to expand...


He was not a Muslim.  He wasn't even middle eastern. I believe he was Hispanic.  There has been some changes made about his profile I see.  His preference was horror movies.  His first choice of music was Gothic, his friends had pictures of watcher sign, satanism occult signs, the young man was into satanism and once again as with Adam Lanza (who was also a satanist and had a webpage dedicated to Satan / Satanism) and was the shooter at Sandy Hook and the Columbine killers (also Satanists who were part of a coven) who went by their coven name - Trenchcoat Mafia - the truth about the Columbine killers being Satanists was covered up for 10 years.  How long will it take this time to hear the truth that this young man was into Satanism?  Everything about this story is pointing in that direction.


----------



## Sallow

Ravi said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.
> 
> UPDATE OCT 1, 2015 8:09 PM
> 
> The conservative site Breitbart and others assert that guns were banned at UCC. This is not true. The student code of conduct bans guns "without written authorization." Under Oregon law, the university could not ban people with a valid concealed carry license from bringing their weapons on campus. (They could ban gun from various buildings and facilities.) Conservative writer Dana Loesch, who initially claimed the campus was a "gun free zone," updated her article to clarify that individuals with concealed carry permits were allowed to bring guns on campus.
> 
> There was, in fact, someone on campus with a concealed carry weapon at the time of the massacre. A local reporter explained to CNN that it was legal for him to have such a weapon on campus.
> 
> 
> UCC Was Not A ‘Gun Free Zone’ Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can’t Ban Guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the real problem is that 300 million guns are floating around the country, which it makes it extremely easy for nuts and criminals to get them.
Click to expand...


Of course it is.

And it's bullshit.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Synthaholic said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of people there with concealed carry.
> 
> You should try turning on the news, or reading a news site.
Click to expand...



RWs want more guns. They tell us that more guns will keep us safe but they never think it through:


----------



## Sallow

Jeremiah said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He was a recent convert to islam.  See his picture and more here..
> Islamic Dickhead Kills Ten, See His Pics | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not a Muslim.  He wasn't even middle eastern. I believe he was Hispanic.  There has been some changes made about his profile I see.  His preference was horror movies.  His first choice of music was Gothic, his friends had pictures of watcher sign, satanism occult signs, the young man was into satanism and once again as with Adam Lanza (who was also a satanist and had a webpage dedicated to Satan / Satanism) and was the shooter at Sandy Hook and the Columbine killers (also Satanists who were part of a coven) who went by their coven name - Trenchcoat Mafia - the truth about the Columbine killers being Satanists was covered up for 10 years.  How long will it take this time to hear the truth that this young man was into Satanism?  Everything about this story is pointing in that direction.
Click to expand...


Satanism can be thought of as a sect of Christianity.


----------



## Sallow

Luddly Neddite said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of people there with concealed carry.
> 
> You should try turning on the news, or reading a news site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> RWs want more guns. They tell us that more guns will keep us safe but they never think it through:
Click to expand...


We have more guns in the public now, than we do people.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Jeremiah said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He was a recent convert to islam.  See his picture and more here..
> Islamic Dickhead Kills Ten, See His Pics | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not a Muslim.  He wasn't even middle eastern. I believe he was Hispanic.  There has been some changes made about his profile I see.  His preference was horror movies.  His first choice of music was Gothic, his friends had pictures of watcher sign, satanism occult signs, the young man was into satanism and once again as with Adam Lanza (who was also a satanist and had a webpage dedicated to Satan / Satanism) and was the shooter at Sandy Hook and the Columbine killers (also Satanists who were part of a coven) who went by their coven name - Trenchcoat Mafia - the truth about the Columbine killers being Satanists was covered up for 10 years.  How long will it take this time to hear the truth that this young man was into Satanism?  Everything about this story is pointing in that direction.
Click to expand...



You see the devil behind every bush. If you believe he was into satan, post proof. Post a link.


----------



## Jroc

Sallow said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He was a recent convert to islam.  See his picture and more here..
> Islamic Dickhead Kills Ten, See His Pics | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not a Muslim.  He wasn't even middle eastern. I believe he was Hispanic.  There has been some changes made about his profile I see.  His preference was horror movies.  His first choice of music was Gothic, his friends had pictures of watcher sign, satanism occult signs, the young man was into satanism and once again as with Adam Lanza (who was also a satanist and had a webpage dedicated to Satan / Satanism) and was the shooter at Sandy Hook and the Columbine killers (also Satanists who were part of a coven) who went by their coven name - Trenchcoat Mafia - the truth about the Columbine killers being Satanists was covered up for 10 years.  How long will it take this time to hear the truth that this young man was into Satanism?  Everything about this story is pointing in that direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Satanism can be thought of as a sect of Christianity.
Click to expand...



I think when you used to work out you dropped a weight on your head......Which is why you're a skinny little bitch now


----------



## Papageorgio

It says killing zombies was a hobby. He registered as an independent. Hated religion.

Bottom line, he walked into a college asked his victims a question and then killed them when answered.

I don't think his political persuasion played squat in his actions. The guy is a nut job who had obvious mental issues and that is the issue that needs addressed. Not his religion, not his politics, not his obsession with zombies. It is his mental issues that pushed him over the edge.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fake because it's fake.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a fake because you desperately need for it to be a fake.
> 
> Your ideology has failed miserably and you're losing your grip.  On so many things!
Click to expand...


It's fake because he was an Obama voter


----------



## chikenwing

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.


Thats because you refuse to admit,that crazy isn't connected to political views what so ever,the clown that shot Giffords identified himself as liberal,Dem,but for rational people,that is irrelevant.


----------



## Dot Com

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


Quelled surprise!!! .....NOT!!!

Seriously, most every clinger on this forum is a loud 'n proud rw'er. 

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Sallow

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fake because it's fake.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a fake because you desperately need for it to be a fake.
> 
> Your ideology has failed miserably and you're losing your grip.  On so many things!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fake because he was an Obama voter
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Sallow

chikenwing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because you refuse to admit,that crazy isn't connected to political views what so ever,the clown that shot Giffords identified himself as liberal,Dem,but for rational people,that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Eyah.

He was a "Liberal Democrat" that shot a Liberal Democrat.

Makes lots of sense.


----------



## Papageorgio

Sallow said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because you refuse to admit,that crazy isn't connected to political views what so ever,the clown that shot Giffords identified himself as liberal,Dem,but for rational people,that is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eyah.
> 
> He was a "Liberal Democrat" that shot a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Makes lots of sense.
Click to expand...


He claimed Giffords was ignoring him. He was a nut, so is this guy. Pretty simple stuff.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Papageorgio said:


> It says killing zombies was a hobby. He registered as an independent. Hated religion.
> 
> Bottom line, he walked into a college asked his victims a question and then killed them when answered.
> 
> I don't think his political persuasion played squat in his actions. The guy is a nut job who had obvious mental issues and that is the issue that needs addressed. Not his religion, not his politics, not his obsession with zombies. It is his mental issues that pushed him over the edge.



The pictures the girl on his site posted were clearly satanic occult symbols. Mercer says he was a follower of Lefthand Path.  That is Satanism, folks. The darkest of the dark.   What he did was to sacrifice 10 people to Satan and then himself.  And the media still acts as if they do not know what is going on.  Despicable. 

SpiritualSatanist.com - The Left Hand Path


----------



## Zander

That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!! 

Massive thread fail.

Internet Archive Wayback Machine


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Papageorgio said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because you refuse to admit,that crazy isn't connected to political views what so ever,the clown that shot Giffords identified himself as liberal,Dem,but for rational people,that is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eyah.
> 
> He was a "Liberal Democrat" that shot a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Makes lots of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He claimed Giffords was ignoring him. He was a nut, so is this guy. Pretty simple stuff.
Click to expand...


The guy that shot Gifford was also a Satanist.  So was Adam Lanza.  So were the Columbine killers - Trenchcoat Mafia was the name of their satanic coven and this kid Mercer?  He said he was into lefthand Path. That is Satanism.  Once again - this is left out of the news reports.  One must wonder why that is.

SpiritualSatanist.com - The Left Hand Path

Left and right were common associations with evil and good. So this association with the Left, and unfortunate events, endings or evil has been known for a very long time.

The Left, as weak, sinister, strange or odd has had a long history. Those who associate with the left-hand path find it to be a path of personal empowerment. For some comparisons consider how most right-hand path religions or practices often work for the benefit of a god, while the self is denied for the benefit or healing of others. Within the Left Hand Path, the self is god, or the center of consciousness. It can be said that the left hand path is self serving. In right hand path practices the self is often denied in exchange for association with a higher power.
____________
This is why he said he was his own god.  The kid was into Satanism.  He sacrificed 10 people to Satan and was looking to specifically sacrifice Christians to Satan - and the media is acting as if they do not know this.  How could they not know it?


----------



## Zander

TOTAL THREAD FAIL. 


Internet Archive Wayback Machine


----------



## Zander




----------



## OldUSAFSniper

Thirty to forty years ago you could buy an M-1 Garand (military surplus) for less than $30.00. JC Penny, Montgomery Ward and Sears and Roebuck all sold guns via their catalogs. All you had to do was mail in your money order to a warehouse somewhere and they would send you the weapon. No background check, nothing. You could also buy as much 30 caliber ammunition as you wanted and they would ship it to you. You could order it under the name of Mickey Mouse and no one cared. Yet, no one killed children in school. No one walked into a church and shot people who were there for bible study. Children could actually play in their front yard or even (gasp) walk by themselves down to the park where they would play all day, not having to worry about the drug deals or the crazies living in the park. Not an armed adult in sight.

So what has changed? Why now do we go through this?

This, ladies and gentlemen; this disease comes to lay directly at the feet of the 'progressives' among us. Those who stand in an intersection downtown and yell at passing cars that they are going to 'kill' you are no longer able to be committed for their own and societies good. You can't make them take their medicine. Medicine which, if they just took it, would take the edge off of their manic depressive episodes. I have a nephew who is schizophrenic and he is dangerous. He has threatened to kill his parents and his sister. His mother and father have begged, pleaded with everyone, anyone to do something and they will not. They have had him committed and they have tried to force him to take his medication. He takes it, feels a little better, only to walk out the door a week later. Then he stops taking his medicine and it starts again. There is no where to put him the doctors tell them. He has the 'right' not to take his medicine, even if he is a clear danger to those around him, the doctors say. So the parents did the only thing they could. They threw this kid out of the house and told him that if he came back, they would have to have him arrested, or worse, they would use force against him. His father bought a gun. An 870 Remington that I helped him get and showed him how to use. They moved to a different town and didn't tell him where they are. So now, this kid lives on the street and he is a ticking time bomb. God help us... God help those who meet him on the street.

Progressives have created a society where the individual and the list of their 'rights' that they should demand continues to grow day by day. No longer do children learn of morals, values, to be kind to their neighbors and of the 'Golden Rule.' Now, there are no consequences of 'sinful' actions, only the fifteen minutes of fame that these situations provide. Since man has become the ultimate pinnacle of a progressive world, there is no God to fear, no Jesus to emulate. No longer do school age children hear of their eternal souls and of how they should do right by their neighbors. No, you owe me... is now the battle cry of this progressive society. Likewise, Barry lectures the nation about guns, but once again, has failed to state the obvious... that Christians have been singled out for extermination. Imagine if the dead had been Muslim or transgender students. Imagine the righteous indignation of him and the progressives.

I am convinced that this nation has passed a critical point in its timeline. I am almost convinced that we can not be brought back from the brink this time.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Zander said:


> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine


He was a Satanist.


----------



## Ravi

Zander said:


> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine


From your link:

This calendar view maps the number of times Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated

Learn to read.


----------



## Zander

Ravi said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> This calendar view maps the number of times Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated
> 
> Learn to read.
Click to expand...


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.


The site was doctored.


----------



## Ravi

Zander said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> This calendar view maps the number of times Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm judging you based on your ignorance. No surprise you can't admit to being wrong.


----------



## theHawk

Progressives are programmed to go with the narrative.  They want to believe this killer was a conservative, even though all the facts, witness accounts, and his own actions say otherwise.  

He was a deranged anti-Christian who targeted and murdered Christians. 

In every way he appears to be a typical deranged liberal, or even a Muslim, so now liberals are quickly trying to pass him off as a conservative.


----------



## AquaAthena

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual



There really are no true conservatives in Oregon. Trust me. Even in eastern Oregon where some residents SAY they are, they are RINOs. 

In 2013 Oregon was the third most liberal state out of all 57. [thanks for that one, obama ]    I used to think it was 50.


----------



## Zander

This thread is wrong on so many levels. 

I have no respect for anyone that believes that this jackass represents conservatives.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Zander said:


> This thread is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> I have no respect for anyone that believes that this jackass represents conservatives.



He also followed a Muzzie ISIS sympathizer and despised Christianity...the dude was whacked


----------



## Ravi

Zander said:


> This thread is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> I have no respect for anyone that believes that this jackass represents conservatives.


He doesn't represent conservatives. Nor do you since you can't admit that you were wrong.


----------



## Zander

Ravi said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> This calendar view maps the number of times Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm judging you based on your ignorance. No surprise you can't admit to being wrong.
Click to expand...


I made a mistake. I make them all of the time.


----------



## Slyhunter

Luddly Neddite said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A discussion on LBC Radio in London, right now!
> 
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850
> 
> Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio
> 
> AUDIO
> LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM
> 
> 
> 
> It was a gun free zone. Only people there with guns were criminals. Maybe if some law abiding citizen had a gun there'd be fewer shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of people there with concealed carry.
> 
> You should try turning on the news, or reading a news site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> RWs want more guns. They tell us that more guns will keep us safe but they never think it through:
Click to expand...

Either you follow the constitution or you don't. If you do then you don't restrict the rights to bear arms, just like you don't restrict free speech or the press.


----------



## Slyhunter

Papageorgio said:


> It says killing zombies was a hobby. He registered as an independent. Hated religion.
> 
> Bottom line, he walked into a college asked his victims a question and then killed them when answered.
> 
> I don't think his political persuasion played squat in his actions. The guy is a nut job who had obvious mental issues and that is the issue that needs addressed. Not his religion, not his politics, not his obsession with zombies. It is his mental issues that pushed him over the edge.


It says shot in head if christian shot in legs if not.


----------



## Politico

Synthaholic said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For exposing that he was a conservative Republican?
> 
> Well...ok.
Click to expand...

No for being an idiot. And no you can't have our guns.


----------



## boedicca

He was a LOON.

His self-identifications on his hook up board profile are all over the map.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Well I see this lie of a thread is still going.

Interesting how easily duped the OP and some of the leftist members here are.


----------



## Ravi

DigitalDrifter said:


> Well I see this lie of a thread is still going.
> 
> Interesting how easily duped the OP and some of the leftist members here are.


I find it interesting how you didn't address the fact that you posted a photoshopped version of the guy's profile.

Latest reports say the guy was a gun nut with white supremacist leanings.


----------



## S.J.

JQPublic1 said:


> Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.


Yeah, I'm sure all those black thugs in Chicago who kill about a dozen people every weekend are conservative Republicans.  Gimme a break, idiot.


----------



## Synthaholic

Jroc said:


> Radical muslims are big government tyrants, who want to control peoples lives.


No, they are Big Religion tyrants.

Of course, you wouldn't know the difference, wearing your kneepads for Israel.


----------



## Synthaholic

Dan Daly said:


> Using your logic...no links and just two? Oops, hoisted by your own petard.
> 
> Do your own homework


No, you made the argument, you back up the argument.

I know I'm a Liberal and you're a wingnut, but I can't teach you everything.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual




Let the lies begin....

You Communists are such scumbags.


----------



## Dan Daly

Synthaholic said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your logic...no links and just two? Oops, hoisted by your own petard.
> 
> Do your own homework
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made the argument, you back up the argument.
> 
> I know I'm a Liberal and you're a wingnut, but I can't teach you everything.
Click to expand...


Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.  I graduated from such nonsense years ago...I like to think for myself rather than let a bunch of political hacks to my thinking for me.   You asked for examples, I provided them, you failed to refute them, you lose.  Bluff, bluster and bullshit don't make you look smart, son...they make you look like the fool in your avatar.


----------



## Synthaholic

Zander said:


> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine


It's funny that you can't read what's right there:

*Note*
This calendar view maps *the number of times http://spiritualpassions.com/seeme/ironcross45.html was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated.* More info in the FAQ.


It's funny because you're a wingnut and you can't read!  You make me so proud, and so damn correct!


----------



## Synthaholic

Ravi said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> This calendar view maps the number of times Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated
> 
> Learn to read.
Click to expand...

Even though you beat me to it, I'm still gonna laugh at Zander: a wingnut who proves the stereotypes are correct.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?



Nope, you're dishonest and willfully ignorant.

Most of the mass killers in the last decade have been leftists.

The fuck who shot Gabby Giffords, Jared Loughner. James Holmes was a registered dim and radical leftist.

Face it, you're just a mindless hack with no regard for facts.


----------



## Synthaholic

AvgGuyIA said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> The site was doctored.
Click to expand...

Your brain was doctored.  And the guy's hand slipped.


----------



## Synthaholic

AquaAthena said:


> Trust me.


----------



## Synthaholic

boedicca said:


> He was a LOON.
> 
> His self-identifications on his hook up board profile are all over the map.


I agree.  He lists himself as a conservative AND an intellectual.


----------



## Synthaholic

Dan Daly said:


> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.



Why wouldn't I?



> Bluff, bluster and bullshit don't make you look smart, son...*they make you look like the fool in your avatar*.



That's Republican Paul Ryan, the last Republican to lose the race for Vice-President.  

But I agree that he's a fool!


----------



## Dan Daly

Synthaholic said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bluff, bluster and bullshit don't make you look smart, son...*they make you look like the fool in your avatar*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Republican Paul Ryan, the last Republican to lose the race for Vice-President.
> 
> But I agree that he's a fool!
Click to expand...


he is and you are...peas in a pod fer shure.

If you want to argue partisan politics, you don't want to argue with me...I hate em all.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.


A more meaningful point can be found on a cue ball.


----------



## Godboy

Synthaholic said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't i?
Click to expand...

...because it's an embarrassing thing to have to admit. I commend you for your courage.


----------



## 2aguy

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.




You mean except for the Gabby Giffords shooter, the gay black guy who shot the reporters, the gay guy who attacked the family research council……and on and on…..


----------



## 2aguy

Delta4Embassy said:


> (posted 21 mins ago)
> 
> Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi's
> 
> "Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi’s
> 
> Chris Harper-Mercer, the gunman who went on Thursday’s rampage at an Oregon college, idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame.
> 
> “I have noticed that so many people like [Vester Lee Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a blog post, referring to the man who in August murdered a reporter and a cameraman on live TV in Virginia, according to CBS News.
> 
> “A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”
> 
> He also showed interest in the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook school shootings, having recently shared documentaries about the massacres with people online.
> 
> A profile on an online dating site, Spiritual Passions, shows Harper-Mercer “doesn’t like organized religion.”
> 
> On his MySpace page, he posted a number of pictures related to the Irish Republican Army."
> 
> more at link
> 
> Nothing indicating any Islamic affiliation as of this.


 
If he idolized nazis he was a left winger…a socialist….


----------



## boedicca

Synthaholic said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a LOON.
> 
> His self-identifications on his hook up board profile are all over the map.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  He lists himself as a conservative AND an intellectual.
Click to expand...



He lists himself as a Satanist and a bunch of nonsense.

The most telling thing about him is his admiration for Vestor Flanagan and all the attention he got for shooting his former co-workers from the television station.

But go ahead, try to spin this into being somehow representative of GOP/Conservative values.  You just reaffirm what a complete and thorough IDIOT you are.


----------



## Missourian

The Mirror is reporting that he was British born and an Irish Republican.

British-born gunman kills 9 in US college shooting


----------



## Papageorgio

Synthaholic getting his ass handed to him in his own thread. What a dupe.


----------



## Jroc

Synthaholic said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a LOON.
> 
> His self-identifications on his hook up board profile are all over the map.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  He lists himself as a conservative AND an intellectual.
Click to expand...

He's as much an "intellectual and conservative" as you are clown.


----------



## MarathonMike

And what conclusions do you draw from this guy claiming to be Conservative? The only conclusion you can logically draw on him or the Colorado Shooter, the Tucson Shooter, the Sandy Hook Shooter, or the Santa Barbara Shooter is: They are all mentally disturbed.


----------



## westwall

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.









No, it's because you're blind.  Virtually all of the mass shooters have been progressive loons.  Mentally deranged as well, but looking at their posts and likes and dislikes they look a lot like.... well you.


----------



## Zander

Synthafaggot is a the lowest form of scumbag.

A lowlife loser that uses the tragic death of innocent people to score cheap political points.


----------



## Blackrook

Ok, asshole, you've convinced me.  Conservative Republicans are bad because this shooter claimed to be a conservative Republican.

I will turn myself in the morning, and tell them I'm guilty of thoughtcrime.


----------



## nuhuh

Dan Daly said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Click to expand...




Synthaholic said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No links.  Why am I not shocked?
> 
> Easily countered, also:  Ron Reagan is a Liberal Democrat, although I _think_ his parents were registered Republicans.
> 
> Jared Loughner shot a Liberal Democrat - he wasn't one himself.  He got his inspiration from wingnut crazy Sarah Palin's target ad.
> 
> That's just two.
Click to expand...


We know that these guys were not Democrats actually far from it.

David Koresh
Randy Weaver
Timothy McVeigh
James Huberty


----------



## Dan Daly

nuhuh said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No links.  Why am I not shocked?
> 
> Easily countered, also:  Ron Reagan is a Liberal Democrat, although I _think_ his parents were registered Republicans.
> 
> Jared Loughner shot a Liberal Democrat - he wasn't one himself.  He got his inspiration from wingnut crazy Sarah Palin's target ad.
> 
> That's just two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know that these guys were not Democrats actually far from it.
> 
> David Koresh
> Randy Weaver
> Timothy McVeigh
> James Huberty
Click to expand...


That's nice.  So you figured out that nuts come from all political persuasions, look at you, learning something new, even if it was obvious to just about anyone with half a brain.  Good job!.


----------



## Slyhunter

Dan Daly said:


> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No links.  Why am I not shocked?
> 
> Easily countered, also:  Ron Reagan is a Liberal Democrat, although I _think_ his parents were registered Republicans.
> 
> Jared Loughner shot a Liberal Democrat - he wasn't one himself.  He got his inspiration from wingnut crazy Sarah Palin's target ad.
> 
> That's just two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know that these guys were not Democrats actually far from it.
> 
> David Koresh
> Randy Weaver
> Timothy McVeigh
> James Huberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice.  So you figured out that nuts come from all political persuasions, look at you, learning something new, even if it was obvious to just about anyone with half a brain.  Good job!.
Click to expand...

Are you one of the ones, with a half a brain, you're talking about?


----------



## Dan Daly

Slyhunter said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No links.  Why am I not shocked?
> 
> Easily countered, also:  Ron Reagan is a Liberal Democrat, although I _think_ his parents were registered Republicans.
> 
> Jared Loughner shot a Liberal Democrat - he wasn't one himself.  He got his inspiration from wingnut crazy Sarah Palin's target ad.
> 
> That's just two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know that these guys were not Democrats actually far from it.
> 
> David Koresh
> Randy Weaver
> Timothy McVeigh
> James Huberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice.  So you figured out that nuts come from all political persuasions, look at you, learning something new, even if it was obvious to just about anyone with half a brain.  Good job!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you one of the ones, with a half a brain, you're talking about?
Click to expand...


I would only need half of the half to figure out something so freakin obvious.  If it takes more for you, oh well, I'm sure you will find someone to blame for your infirmity.


----------



## nuhuh

OldUSAFSniper said:


> Thirty to forty years ago you could buy an M-1 Garand (military surplus) for less than $30.00. JC Penny, Montgomery Ward and Sears and Roebuck all sold guns via their catalogs. All you had to do was mail in your money order to a warehouse somewhere and they would send you the weapon. No background check, nothing. You could also buy as much 30 caliber ammunition as you wanted and they would ship it to you. You could order it under the name of Mickey Mouse and no one cared. Yet, no one killed children in school. No one walked into a church and shot people who were there for bible study. Children could actually play in their front yard or even (gasp) walk by themselves down to the park where they would play all day, not having to worry about the drug deals or the crazies living in the park. Not an armed adult in sight.
> 
> So what has changed? Why now do we go through this?
> 
> This, ladies and gentlemen; this disease comes to lay directly at the feet of the 'progressives' among us. Those who stand in an intersection downtown and yell at passing cars that they are going to 'kill' you are no longer able to be committed for their own and societies good. You can't make them take their medicine. Medicine which, if they just took it, would take the edge off of their manic depressive episodes. I have a nephew who is schizophrenic and he is dangerous. He has threatened to kill his parents and his sister. His mother and father have begged, pleaded with everyone, anyone to do something and they will not. They have had him committed and they have tried to force him to take his medication. He takes it, feels a little better, only to walk out the door a week later. Then he stops taking his medicine and it starts again. There is no where to put him the doctors tell them. He has the 'right' not to take his medicine, even if he is a clear danger to those around him, the doctors say. So the parents did the only thing they could. They threw this kid out of the house and told him that if he came back, they would have to have him arrested, or worse, they would use force against him. His father bought a gun. An 870 Remington that I helped him get and showed him how to use. They moved to a different town and didn't tell him where they are. So now, this kid lives on the street and he is a ticking time bomb. God help us... God help those who meet him on the street.
> 
> Progressives have created a society where the individual and the list of their 'rights' that they should demand continues to grow day by day. No longer do children learn of morals, values, to be kind to their neighbors and of the 'Golden Rule.' Now, there are no consequences of 'sinful' actions, only the fifteen minutes of fame that these situations provide. Since man has become the ultimate pinnacle of a progressive world, there is no God to fear, no Jesus to emulate. No longer do school age children hear of their eternal souls and of how they should do right by their neighbors. No, you owe me... is now the battle cry of this progressive society. Likewise, Barry lectures the nation about guns, but once again, has failed to state the obvious... that Christians have been singled out for extermination. Imagine if the dead had been Muslim or transgender students. Imagine the righteous indignation of him and the progressives.
> 
> I am convinced that this nation has passed a critical point in its timeline. I am almost convinced that we can not be brought back from the brink this time.



You're completely wrong in your assessment. It was Ronald Reagan who stopped funding for the mentally ill, it was Ronald Reagan who allowed the mentally ill to be put into jails because it was the only way to detain the mentally ill, it was Ronald Reagan who brought homelessness to America. It was the very idea of faith based charity and care that ruined health care in America.


----------



## nuhuh

Dan Daly said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another one who needs other people to do his homework for him.  Bet if you were a smoker, you'd not only be bumming a cigarette and a light, but you'd also want us to jump up and down on your chest to help you smoke it.
> 
> Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
> 
> Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
> 
> Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
> 
> Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
> 
> James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
> 
> Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
> 
> Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
> 
> Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
> 
> Bryce Williams/Lester Flanagan, shot reporter, cameraman and interviewee in Virginia - liberal democrat whiner
> 
> and of course let's not forget some oldies, but goodies like Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No links.  Why am I not shocked?
> 
> Easily countered, also:  Ron Reagan is a Liberal Democrat, although I _think_ his parents were registered Republicans.
> 
> Jared Loughner shot a Liberal Democrat - he wasn't one himself.  He got his inspiration from wingnut crazy Sarah Palin's target ad.
> 
> That's just two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know that these guys were not Democrats actually far from it.
> 
> David Koresh
> Randy Weaver
> Timothy McVeigh
> James Huberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice.  So you figured out that nuts come from all political persuasions, look at you, learning something new, even if it was obvious to just about anyone with half a brain.  Good job!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you one of the ones, with a half a brain, you're talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would only need half of the half to figure out something so freakin obvious.  If it takes more for you, oh well, I'm sure you will find someone to blame for your infirmity.
Click to expand...


From what I've seen you've only proven that you will never have to worry about dying from brain cancer.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Conservative republican who hates christians and has jihadi friend.....yeah thats it.........


----------



## blackhawk

The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.


----------



## JQPublic1

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats
Click to expand...


 when you look up the word liberal  and educate your self, come on back and join the party! Liberals are not totalitarian dictators...that is more in line with those identifying themselves as conservatives.


----------



## Politico

blackhawk said:


> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.


True dat.


----------



## candycorn

Politico said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
Click to expand...


Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.


----------



## candycorn

bear513 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news
> 
> 
> What is your answer candy?
> 
> We have to stop them
Click to expand...


Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two. 

First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere.  The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution.  The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol.  The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere.  Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington.  As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there.  The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place.  This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine".  Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fuck up everything."  I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means.  I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger. 

We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles.  The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you. 





So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.

This move in and of itself will have 3 effects.  First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused.  Secondly, the number of players will be reduced.  Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to.  This is important later.

The next step is legislative.  Oh boy.  It involves attacking supply and demand.

Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc.  The language goes like this:  

*The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.*​The DOE could act under the first condition.  POTUS could act under the 4th.  

Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:

*16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan*​
Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc.  Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm.  So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.  

Sorry.  

So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun.  Don't worry; it's transferable.  






 Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.

Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license.  That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program.  The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest.  However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years.  A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.  Jane's license is appreciating. 

So 3 things happen here:  
1.  Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment.  This shorts the chances of her selling it.  
2.  If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy.  Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.  
3.  Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000).  So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse.  She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check.  Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799.  So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000.  Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.  

Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.  






 Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.  

Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.  

Enforcement needs to be front and center.  I would do the following:  If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap.  So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute.  And the federal rap comes with no parole.  Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap.  The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence.  Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.

Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk.  Boom; federal crime.
Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.

Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....





 Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.  

Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
Appoint armed guards at each campus.  Get rid of the strength coach  for the football team and hire some guards
Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness.  If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would. 

----------------

Anyway, what will happen over time is this:  Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced.  This reduces overall supply.  Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded  (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for   gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also.  Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.


----------



## blackhawk

candycorn said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
Click to expand...

And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.


----------



## Papageorgio

JQPublic1 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you look up the word liberal  and educate your self, come on back and join the party! Liberals are not totalitarian dictators...that is more in line with those identifying themselves as conservatives.
Click to expand...


I have never met a liberal that fits the dictionary definition of a liberal. They disappeared many years ago.


----------



## candycorn

blackhawk said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
Click to expand...


Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.


----------



## longknife

I just posted an image elsewhere that proves he was registered as an INDEPENDENT!

So that proves the BS of the OP.


----------



## blackhawk

candycorn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JQPublic1 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
Click to expand...


*Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.*

Your proof is the Conservative enclaves on the Westside and Southside of Chicago. Durr.


----------



## candycorn

blackhawk said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.
Click to expand...


Incarcerating people for the entire length of their sentence is "unrealistic"?  Please tell me another joke.  Or drop your pants and show us one.

Markets have proven:


If the supply decreases, and the demand remains the same, there will be a shortage, and the price will increase.
Increased prices means fewer weapons on the streets.  You won't see many Ferrari's on the street today.  Is the demand there?  Sure.  The price is prohibitive thus you're going to have to approach a Honda Accord when you go pan handling.  

Anyway, you increase the price and you drive out demand.  Manufacturers produce fewer driving up the demand even more.  

All of this is science so, obviously, you're way out of your depth.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.*
> 
> Your proof is the Conservative enclaves on the Westside and Southside of Chicago. Durr.
Click to expand...


As if these gang-bangers have an political leaning.


----------



## Jroc

candycorn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incarcerating people for the entire length of their sentence is "unrealistic"?  Please tell me another joke.  Or drop your pants and show us one.
> 
> Markets have proven:
> 
> 
> If the supply decreases, and the demand remains the same, there will be a shortage, and the price will increase.
> Increased prices means fewer weapons on the streets.  You won't see many Ferrari's on the street today.  Is the demand there?  Sure.  The price is prohibitive thus you're going to have to approach a Honda Accord when you go pan handling.
> 
> Anyway, you increase the price and you drive out demand.  Manufacturers produce fewer driving up the demand even more.
> 
> All of this is science so, obviously, you're way out of your depth.
Click to expand...

The leftist mentality. Put gun manufactures out of business. Take guns away from law abiding citizens, and create as large black market for firearms ..You libs a sooo stupid


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.*
> 
> Your proof is the Conservative enclaves on the Westside and Southside of Chicago. Durr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if these gang-bangers have an political leaning.
Click to expand...


I agree, JQ's claim was beyond moronic.


----------



## candycorn

Jroc said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incarcerating people for the entire length of their sentence is "unrealistic"?  Please tell me another joke.  Or drop your pants and show us one.
> 
> Markets have proven:
> 
> 
> If the supply decreases, and the demand remains the same, there will be a shortage, and the price will increase.
> Increased prices means fewer weapons on the streets.  You won't see many Ferrari's on the street today.  Is the demand there?  Sure.  The price is prohibitive thus you're going to have to approach a Honda Accord when you go pan handling.
> 
> Anyway, you increase the price and you drive out demand.  Manufacturers produce fewer driving up the demand even more.
> 
> All of this is science so, obviously, you're way out of your depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The leftist mentality, put gun manufactures out of business
Click to expand...

Anyone who wants a gun can still get one.  Patently false.  



Jroc said:


> take guns away from law abiding citizens,


Nothing I suggested does that.



Jroc said:


> and create as large black market for firearms ..


The black market, I thought, was already there.  This actually cleans it up by incarcerating people who violate the law for the full length of their term.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Papageorgio said:


> Synthaholic getting his ass handed to him in his own thread. What a dupe.


That's because she parrots the talking points handed to her by her masters - like the good little village useful idiot she is.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah


Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
Every time.


----------



## Synthaholic

Dan Daly said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bluff, bluster and bullshit don't make you look smart, son...*they make you look like the fool in your avatar*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Republican Paul Ryan, the last Republican to lose the race for Vice-President.
> 
> But I agree that he's a fool!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is and you are...peas in a pod fer shure.
> 
> If you want to argue partisan politics, you don't want to argue with me...I hate em all.
Click to expand...

Then you are absolutely worthless on this forum.

Go yell at the kids on your lawn, dope.


----------



## Synthaholic

Godboy said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't i?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...because it's an embarrassing thing to have to admit. I commend you for your courage.
Click to expand...

Only to a retard like yourself.


----------



## Synthaholic

2aguy said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean except for the Gabby Giffords shooter, the gay black guy who shot the reporters, the gay guy who attacked the family research council……and on and on…..
Click to expand...

Neither one of them identified as Liberals.

If they did, you would be ready with a link instead of talking out your ass.  Again.


----------



## Synthaholic

2aguy said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> (posted 21 mins ago)
> 
> Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi's
> 
> "Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi’s
> 
> Chris Harper-Mercer, the gunman who went on Thursday’s rampage at an Oregon college, idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame.
> 
> “I have noticed that so many people like [Vester Lee Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a blog post, referring to the man who in August murdered a reporter and a cameraman on live TV in Virginia, according to CBS News.
> 
> “A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”
> 
> He also showed interest in the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook school shootings, having recently shared documentaries about the massacres with people online.
> 
> A profile on an online dating site, Spiritual Passions, shows Harper-Mercer “doesn’t like organized religion.”
> 
> On his MySpace page, he posted a number of pictures related to the Irish Republican Army."
> 
> more at link
> 
> Nothing indicating any Islamic affiliation as of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he idolized nazis he was a left winger…a socialist….
Click to expand...

^^^ Fucking idiot doesn't know that Fascism is a Right-Wing ideology.


----------



## Synthaholic

boedicca said:


> But go ahead, try to spin this into being somehow representative of GOP/Conservative values.


I posted his own dating profile, that he wrote, and in which he said he was a conservative Republican.

But I'm the one spinning it?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Synthaholic said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> But go ahead, try to spin this into being somehow representative of GOP/Conservative values.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted his own dating profile, that he wrote, and in which he said he was a conservative Republican.
> 
> But I'm the one spinning it?
Click to expand...



Just wanted to let you know that for some totally extra-terrestrial reason, IBD/TIPP decided to also poll Paul Ryan for the GOP nomination. The results were just published this morning. Your man Ryan comes in at 3%!!!


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
Click to expand...


Point to where it says that in the constitution


----------



## Godboy

Synthaholic said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't i?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...because it's an embarrassing thing to have to admit. I commend you for your courage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to a retard like yourself.
Click to expand...

If you think there isnt a negative connotation to the word "liberal", youre in denial. Most people in this country dont define themselves as such, and they are annoyed by them.


----------



## bodecea

Godboy said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't i?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...because it's an embarrassing thing to have to admit. I commend you for your courage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to a retard like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think there isnt a negative connotation to the word "liberal", youre in denial. Most people in this country dont define themselves as such, and they are annoyed by them.
Click to expand...

I'm a liberal and proud of it.  I don't know where you got your credential to determine who doesn't like to be called a liberal...but I think you earned it under false pretenses.


----------



## Godboy

bodecea said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you admit to being a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't i?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...because it's an embarrassing thing to have to admit. I commend you for your courage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to a retard like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think there isnt a negative connotation to the word "liberal", youre in denial. Most people in this country dont define themselves as such, and they are annoyed by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a liberal and proud of it.  I don't know where you got your credential to determine who doesn't like to be called a liberal...but I think you earned it under false pretenses.
Click to expand...

I just wanted you to be aware that most people are annoyed by liberals. You guys are super douchey. You are just as awful those on the hardcore right.


----------



## Rustic

Obama should tend to his own house first before wadding in the deep end of the pool... Black on black crime.

It's a second admendment thing... He just doesn't understand.


----------



## Ringel05

Just goes to show politics and it's zealots are pathetic.
(For those of you who aren't smart enough to get it I'm NOT talking about the shooter.......)


----------



## bodecea

Godboy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't i?
> 
> 
> 
> ...because it's an embarrassing thing to have to admit. I commend you for your courage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to a retard like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think there isnt a negative connotation to the word "liberal", youre in denial. Most people in this country dont define themselves as such, and they are annoyed by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a liberal and proud of it.  I don't know where you got your credential to determine who doesn't like to be called a liberal...but I think you earned it under false pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just wanted you to be aware* that most people are annoyed by liberals.* You guys are super douchey. You are just as awful those on the hardcore right.
Click to expand...

Oh?  Where did you get that stat from?


----------



## bodecea

Rustic said:


> Obama should tend to his own house first before wadding in the deep end of the pool... Black on black crime.
> 
> It's a second admendment thing... He just doesn't understand.


If black leaders are responsible for cleaning up black on crime....does that mean that white leaders are responsible for cleaning up white on white crime?


----------



## Rustic

We need more guns... Call for universal background checks...

Hope and change 
Obama the best gun salesman in history... Making bank


----------



## Jroc

candycorn said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incarcerating people for the entire length of their sentence is "unrealistic"?  Please tell me another joke.  Or drop your pants and show us one.
> 
> Markets have proven:
> 
> 
> If the supply decreases, and the demand remains the same, there will be a shortage, and the price will increase.
> Increased prices means fewer weapons on the streets.  You won't see many Ferrari's on the street today.  Is the demand there?  Sure.  The price is prohibitive thus you're going to have to approach a Honda Accord when you go pan handling.
> 
> Anyway, you increase the price and you drive out demand.  Manufacturers produce fewer driving up the demand even more.
> 
> All of this is science so, obviously, you're way out of your depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The leftist mentality, put gun manufactures out of business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who wants a gun can still get one.  Patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> take guns away from law abiding citizens,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I suggested does that.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> and create as large black market for firearms ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The black market, I thought, was already there.  This actually cleans it up by incarcerating people who violate the law for the full length of their term.
Click to expand...


You want limit guns for everyone. You leftist also cry about our incarceration rate, as you say incarcerate them ..Hypocrite


----------



## Rustic

More guns less crime... Fact

Common sense thing.... You would not understand


----------



## candycorn

Jroc said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incarcerating people for the entire length of their sentence is "unrealistic"?  Please tell me another joke.  Or drop your pants and show us one.
> 
> Markets have proven:
> 
> 
> If the supply decreases, and the demand remains the same, there will be a shortage, and the price will increase.
> Increased prices means fewer weapons on the streets.  You won't see many Ferrari's on the street today.  Is the demand there?  Sure.  The price is prohibitive thus you're going to have to approach a Honda Accord when you go pan handling.
> 
> Anyway, you increase the price and you drive out demand.  Manufacturers produce fewer driving up the demand even more.
> 
> All of this is science so, obviously, you're way out of your depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The leftist mentality, put gun manufactures out of business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who wants a gun can still get one.  Patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> take guns away from law abiding citizens,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I suggested does that.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> and create as large black market for firearms ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The black market, I thought, was already there.  This actually cleans it up by incarcerating people who violate the law for the full length of their term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want limit guns for everyone. You leftist also cry about our incarceration rate, as you say incarcerate them ..Hypocrite
Click to expand...


He he he....you're the one bitching about it.  I say decriminalize victimless petty offenses and lock up those who use guns improperly.


----------



## S.J.

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.*
> 
> Your proof is the Conservative enclaves on the Westside and Southside of Chicago. Durr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if these gang-bangers have an political leaning.
Click to expand...

I'd bet half of them have Obama posters on their walls.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

Black man shoots up a bunch of whites in Oregon. Where is the outcry about hate crime and racism?


----------



## JQPublic1

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Black man shoots up a bunch of whites in Oregon. Where is the outcry about hate crime and racism?



Maybe  Blacks are still trying to figure how this so-called  white looking "Black guy" professed  a hatred for Blacks. It is hard to telll the difference anymore... could this be another Rachel  Dolezal 
copycat? You tell me! He sho' looked White to me!


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
Click to expand...

Oh... THAT game.   OK...
A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
Surely, you agree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news
> 
> 
> What is your answer candy?
> 
> We have to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two.
> 
> First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere.  The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution.  The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol.  The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere.  Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington.  As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there.  The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place.  This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine".  Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fuck up everything."  I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means.  I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger.
> 
> We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles.  The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.
> 
> This move in and of itself will have 3 effects.  First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused.  Secondly, the number of players will be reduced.  Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to.  This is important later.
> 
> The next step is legislative.  Oh boy.  It involves attacking supply and demand.
> 
> Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc.  The language goes like this:
> 
> *The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.*​The DOE could act under the first condition.  POTUS could act under the 4th.
> 
> Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:
> 
> *16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan*​
> Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc.  Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm.  So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun.  Don't worry; it's transferable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.
> 
> Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license.  That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program.  The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest.  However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years.  A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.  Jane's license is appreciating.
> 
> So 3 things happen here:
> 1.  Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment.  This shorts the chances of her selling it.
> 2.  If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy.  Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.
> 3.  Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000).  So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse.  She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check.  Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799.  So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000.  Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.
> 
> Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.
> 
> Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.
> 
> Enforcement needs to be front and center.  I would do the following:  If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap.  So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute.  And the federal rap comes with no parole.  Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap.  The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence.  Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.
> 
> Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk.  Boom; federal crime.
> Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.
> 
> Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.
> 
> Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
> Appoint armed guards at each campus.  Get rid of the strength coach  for the football team and hire some guards
> Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness.  If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> Anyway, what will happen over time is this:  Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced.  This reduces overall supply.  Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded  (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for   gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also.  Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.
Click to expand...


*Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license. That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program. The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest. However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years. A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so. Jane's license is appreciating.
*
You want a state to waste $10,000 per gun on your stupid proposal?
Why is this a good idea?

*A 100% return rate per year sounds really high 
*
Yes, moronically, mind-blowingly too high.

*but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.*

Yes, that's why most state pension plans are broke.
*
Jane's license is appreciating.
*
For no good reason.


----------



## Synthaholic

blackhawk said:


> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.


Like vilifying Iraq, who didn't attack us, after 3,000 dead bodies?


----------



## Synthaholic

blackhawk said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
Click to expand...

You're either full of shit, or just a fucking liar?  Which is it?

1. Background checks for all firearm sales.
2. Close all gun show loopholes.
3. Ban large capacity magazines.
4. Reinstate the assault weapons ban.

There's four off the top of my head.


----------



## blackhawk

Synthaholic said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're either full of shit, or just a fucking liar?  Which is it?
> 
> 1. Background checks for all firearm sales.
> 2. Close all gun show loopholes.
> 3. Ban large capacity magazines.
> 4. Reinstate the assault weapons ban.
> 
> There's four off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

We have background checks now.
Few if any who commit these type of crimes get their guns at gun shows,
With few exceptions the majority used in these attacks are standard round clips not large capacity magazines.
Also with few exceptions it's handguns that are used in these type of attacks not assault weapons.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


And?...Your point?.....


----------



## thereisnospoon

Synthaholic said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending desire of some to try and score political points off dead bodies is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're either full of shit, or just a fucking liar?  Which is it?
> 
> 1. Background checks for all firearm sales.
> 2. Close all gun show loopholes.
> 3. Ban large capacity magazines.
> 4. Reinstate the assault weapons ban.
> 
> There's four off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

....This guy bought all of the firearms with background checks.
Second....Not a single criminal has ever been within the law when they got their hands on a gun. The government can pass all the gun control laws it can and guess what,? ...The criminals would still get their hands on guns.....Why is this, you stupid liberal?...Because they are fucking criminals.
So regurgitating the Obama songs. First , you have to get your tongue out of his ass. Sycophant.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Asclepias said:


> How much do you want to bet that even though he is a self professed con some of the clowns on the board will make up every excuse to say why he was not up to and including some elaborate conspiracy theory?


Nobody cares. He is one individual. One sick fuck. 
Of course you libs will never let a tragedy go to waste. Politicize everything. Even Obama spewed this. "We need to politicize this event"...
You left wingers are ghouls. Not an ounce of respect or feelings toward the victims. To your side, the bodies are political tools.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're talking about Westboro.
Click to expand...

No...You simpleton. The OP was referring to the shooter.


----------



## thereisnospoon

candycorn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
Click to expand...

Don't play stupid.....Oh, I forgot.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Delta4Embassy said:


> And lest we forget, we used to like Islamic terrorists,
> 
> Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favoured by neighbouring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention[citation needed]. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[1] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[2] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]"
> 
> And because of this aid those we aided became the Taliban.


What an idiotic comment.
Thank you Garner Ted Armstrong.
STFU


----------



## Vigilante

*Media Narrative: Half-Black Oregon Killer is a "White Supremacist"*
Front Page Magazine ^ | October 2, 2015 | Daniel Greenfield
Was he a Half-White Supremacist? According to the LA Times, Chris Harper Mercer, the Oregon killer, was a "White Supremacist". One slight problem. Mercer identified as multi-racial. His mother was black. He doesn't seem to have even known his father. He identified with black TV killer Vester Lee Flanagan. This doesn't seem to have stopped the media with George Zimmerman who was labeled a white Hispanic, so maybe Chris Harper Mercer was a white Black? Was he a Half-White Supremacist? I'm not an expert on "White Supremacism", but being half-black and then shooting a bunch of white Christians would make...


----------



## thereisnospoon

candycorn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
Click to expand...

Yes., we enjoy the carnage. 
You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
Go take a flying fuck on a rolling donut.


----------



## thereisnospoon

bear513 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news
> 
> 
> What is your answer candy?
> 
> We have to stop them
Click to expand...

Do not engage that idiot.
She is a card carrying emoting hysterical non thinking feminazi liberal.


----------



## thereisnospoon

HUGGY said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are by nature and social design intolerant.
> 
> Murder is by definition the most clear form of intolerance.
> 
> Some Muslims are extremely intolerant..therefore we get ISIL and those that perpetrated 9/11.
> 
> Some Christians are extremely intolerant therefore we get the despicable acts they perpetrate.
> 
> Some people are of no particular religion but have developed extreme intolerance and we get wackos like this fine Oregon fellow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!! Conservatives value what is tried and true UNLESS A BETTER WAY OF DOING THINGS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. Shrill bleatings for "hopeychangey" just doesn't cut the mustard!! Extremists exist in many form; totalitarian regimes were full of the scum. And if I recall correctly the vast majority of them were radicals in the developing days.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Conservatives value only what they accept.  They are certainly NOT open to any "BETTER WAY".  They are just like fundamentalist Muslims in that they believe in fantasy stories and are intolerant of any other possibilities.  Conservatives feel like they are victims.  They are more concerned with defending their beliefs than any possible "BETTER WAY".
Click to expand...

And I suppose you believe liberalism is "the better way"?....Please.
Hey knucklehead. The breakdown of civility in this country over the last 6 years is due to liberalism's influence.


----------



## Rustic

Progressives will always take everything out of context... The truth is far too foreign to them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> 4. Reinstate the assault weapons ban.


Really.
Please provide a sound argument as to why this rifle should be banned.


----------



## Rustic

The so called assault weapon is just a common firearm no deadlier than any other rifle... Progressives are just too ignorant know the difference.

Common sense is not their wheelhouse...


----------



## Slyhunter

JQPublic1 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you look up the word liberal  and educate your self, come on back and join the party! Liberals are not totalitarian dictators...that is more in line with those identifying themselves as conservatives.
Click to expand...

Cuba, Venezuela.


----------



## Slyhunter

Papageorgio said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you look up the word liberal  and educate your self, come on back and join the party! Liberals are not totalitarian dictators...that is more in line with those identifying themselves as conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never met a liberal that fits the dictionary definition of a liberal. They disappeared many years ago.
Click to expand...

Dictionary definition, I don't know.
Thomas Payne definition of a Liberal, just look at the Libertarian Party.


----------



## Slyhunter

Jroc said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unreal?  I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal.  Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones.  In the post right before yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incarcerating people for the entire length of their sentence is "unrealistic"?  Please tell me another joke.  Or drop your pants and show us one.
> 
> Markets have proven:
> 
> 
> If the supply decreases, and the demand remains the same, there will be a shortage, and the price will increase.
> Increased prices means fewer weapons on the streets.  You won't see many Ferrari's on the street today.  Is the demand there?  Sure.  The price is prohibitive thus you're going to have to approach a Honda Accord when you go pan handling.
> 
> Anyway, you increase the price and you drive out demand.  Manufacturers produce fewer driving up the demand even more.
> 
> All of this is science so, obviously, you're way out of your depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The leftist mentality. Put gun manufactures out of business. Take guns away from law abiding citizens, and create as large black market for firearms ..You libs a sooo stupid
Click to expand...

It worked on stopping drugs.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> 4. Reinstate the assault weapons ban.


Pictures will make this easier for you to understand:





Thank you in advance for a response that does not include emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

JQPublic1 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black man shoots up a bunch of whites in Oregon. Where is the outcry about hate crime and racism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe  Blacks are still trying to figure how this so-called  white looking "Black guy" professed  a hatred for Blacks. It is hard to telll the difference anymore... could this be another Rachel  Dolezal
> copycat? You tell me! He sho' looked White to me!
Click to expand...

You need to take all of that up with the democrat party. They thrive on and set the rules for race definition because they are the party of segregation.


----------



## Synthaholic

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> And?...Your point?.....
Click to expand...

The point is clear:  conservative Republicans are more likely to become unhinged and commit mass murder.

They are extreme in their thought processes - this site is evidence of that

Become enraged when things don't go their way, like when Democrats actually have votes in Congress, too

Exhibit irrational paranoia, as when they are convinced the gummint is coming for their guns

Feel put upon

Feel like they are losing their White country


How many more do you need?


----------



## Synthaholic

thereisnospoon said:


> And I suppose you believe liberalism is "the better way"?


It's been proven countless times.

That you can't or won't recognize it isn't my concern.  You are quickly becoming an inconsequential minority.  You can't even run a political party, never mind a country.


----------



## JQPublic1

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.*
> 
> Your proof is the Conservative enclaves on the Westside and Southside of Chicago. Durr.
Click to expand...

I don't have a clue as to who lives on the West-side and South-side of Chicago since I dont live there,
I assume you are referring to Black gangsters.  They are NOT liberals...those thugs are anything BUT liberal.  Some may be getting  politicians elected who favor their causes like the Mafia did to gain respectability,( I hear that is occurring} but for the most part they have been largely apolitical. BTW before you bring up the republican  vs democrat  equals conservative vs liberal BS,,, There are plenty of Democrats who are conservative and visa versa.


----------



## Maxx

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?



Identifying as a liberal Democrat is like riding a moped or dating a fat chick.
Some people do it for whatever reason, but nobody wants to be seen doing it.


----------



## candycorn

thereisnospoon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes., we enjoy the carnage.
> You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
> Go take a flying fuck on a rolling donut.
Click to expand...


Okay, tell us the solution then.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JQPublic1 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you look up the word liberal  and educate your self, come on back and join the party! Liberals are not totalitarian dictators...that is more in line with those identifying themselves as conservatives.
Click to expand...


You co-opted the word Liberal.  You "Liberals" are all about total state control over all human activity, there's nothing Liberal about that, that's Mao, that's Stalin


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
Click to expand...


In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

candycorn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news
> 
> 
> What is your answer candy?
> 
> We have to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two.
> 
> First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere.  The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution.  The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol.  The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere.  Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington.  As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there.  The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place.  This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine".  Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fuck up everything."  I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means.  I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger.
> 
> We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles.  The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.
> 
> This move in and of itself will have 3 effects.  First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused.  Secondly, the number of players will be reduced.  Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to.  This is important later.
> 
> The next step is legislative.  Oh boy.  It involves attacking supply and demand.
> 
> Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc.  The language goes like this:
> 
> *The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.*​The DOE could act under the first condition.  POTUS could act under the 4th.
> 
> Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:
> 
> *16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan*​
> Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc.  Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm.  So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun.  Don't worry; it's transferable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.
> 
> Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license.  That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program.  The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest.  However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years.  A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.  Jane's license is appreciating.
> 
> So 3 things happen here:
> 1.  Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment.  This shorts the chances of her selling it.
> 2.  If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy.  Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.
> 3.  Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000).  So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse.  She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check.  Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799.  So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000.  Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.
> 
> Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.
> 
> Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.
> 
> Enforcement needs to be front and center.  I would do the following:  If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap.  So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute.  And the federal rap comes with no parole.  Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap.  The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence.  Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.
> 
> Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk.  Boom; federal crime.
> Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.
> 
> Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.
> 
> Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
> Appoint armed guards at each campus.  Get rid of the strength coach  for the football team and hire some guards
> Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness.  If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> Anyway, what will happen over time is this:  Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced.  This reduces overall supply.  Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded  (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for   gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also.  Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.
Click to expand...


Homicide rate spiked after Great Society Progressives were in control.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news
> 
> 
> What is your answer candy?
> 
> We have to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two.
> 
> First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere.  The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution.  The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol.  The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere.  Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington.  As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there.  The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place.  This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine".  Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fuck up everything."  I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means.  I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger.
> 
> We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles.  The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.
> 
> This move in and of itself will have 3 effects.  First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused.  Secondly, the number of players will be reduced.  Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to.  This is important later.
> 
> The next step is legislative.  Oh boy.  It involves attacking supply and demand.
> 
> Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc.  The language goes like this:
> 
> *The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.*​The DOE could act under the first condition.  POTUS could act under the 4th.
> 
> Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:
> 
> *16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan*​
> Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc.  Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm.  So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun.  Don't worry; it's transferable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.
> 
> Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license.  That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program.  The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest.  However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years.  A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.  Jane's license is appreciating.
> 
> So 3 things happen here:
> 1.  Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment.  This shorts the chances of her selling it.
> 2.  If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy.  Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.
> 3.  Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000).  So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse.  She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check.  Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799.  So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000.  Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.
> 
> Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.
> 
> Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.
> 
> Enforcement needs to be front and center.  I would do the following:  If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap.  So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute.  And the federal rap comes with no parole.  Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap.  The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence.  Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.
> 
> Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk.  Boom; federal crime.
> Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.
> 
> Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.
> 
> Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
> Appoint armed guards at each campus.  Get rid of the strength coach  for the football team and hire some guards
> Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness.  If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> Anyway, what will happen over time is this:  Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced.  This reduces overall supply.  Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded  (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for   gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also.  Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license. That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program. The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest. However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years. A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so. Jane's license is appreciating.
> *
> You want a state to waste $10,000 per gun on your stupid proposal?
> Why is this a good idea?
Click to expand...

On new purchases.  Big difference.

Actually, that will not happen.  Some guns will be sold.  Some guns will be used in a crime and the insurance policy will go to the victims.  But yes, for responsible gun owners, the "buy in" of $1,000 will pay off $10,000 if held for 10 years.  But I would think most would not cash in on it. Maybe not.  The reason is because the "buy in" will likely rise as time goes by.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A 100% return rate per year sounds really high
> *
> Yes, moronically, mind-blowingly too high.
> 
> *but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.*
> 
> Yes, that's why most state pension plans are broke.


Some are.  Most are solvent.  
*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Jane's license is appreciating.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> For no good reason.


For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Care4all

Life itself, seems so insignificant to these mass murderers...

Why?

Are they all mentally disturbed, and if so, what is making them mentally disturbed?  Never nurtured, never cared for, never loved?  bullying?  Video games?  The internet, message boards, Anti depressant drugs that are not the right drugs for their illness?


----------



## candycorn

Care4all said:


> Life itself, seems so insignificant to these mass murderers...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Are they all mentally disturbed, and if so, what is making them mentally disturbed?  Never nurtured, never cared for, never loved?  bullying?  Video games?  The internet, message boards, Anti depressant drugs that are not the right drugs for their illness?



That I believe.  What is non-sense is that they don't know right from wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

And thank YOU for agreeing that it is constitutional to lay a $1500 tax on abortions, done with the limit the exercise of the right to same.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> Exhibit irrational paranoia, as when they are convinced the gummint is coming for their guns


Speaking of acting on irrational paranoia...
Still waiting for your response to post 257 and 262.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> [
> For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.


In exactly the same way, as you agreed, that a $1500 tax on abortions, laid with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to same, does not violate the constitution.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And thank YOU for agreeing that it is constitutional to lay a $1500 tax on abortions, done with the limit the exercise of the right to same.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in the constitution to prevent either thing from happening.  The difference is that guns have proven to be a menace to society.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same way, as you agreed, that a $1500 tax on abortions, laid with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to same, does not violate the constitution.
Click to expand...


Your sentence doesn't make sense so I have no idea what you're talking about.  In fact, the tax you wish to place on abortions will not only guarantee there will never be another GOP president (a win) but it is mainly poor women who are most penalized by this sort of thing.  So placing that tax on the procedure will likely push the overall costs into the realm of it being tax deductible for those who have it done.

Nice going dumbass.


​​


----------



## Silhouette

How did we go from the shooter to abortions?


----------



## Silhouette

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


A man who liked romantic comedies, working out in gyms, identifies as straight and when killing, saved the worst abuse for those identifying as Christian the week after the Pope announced nothing but traditional marriage is allowed to Christians and they may not promote gay marriage either.
Sounds like we have a closet-boy here who, when push comes to shove, identifies as homosexual.

Yep, a twisted mind for sure..  Just like the "conservative" Dylan Roof kid with a super-sweet and dandy black boy-friend he spent the night with frequently (with a media-assigned motive of "racial hatred of blacks") who liked to go to gyms, but judging from his pencil arms was doing more watching than working out.  And on his right wrist he wore a delicate watch band upside down, which I think in gay vernacular for "I'm gay and I'm a bottom"....who gunned down not 9 blacks, but 9 Christians in a church bible study group just hours after a major southern Christian church announced it would not support gay marriage at all..

Yep...just a couple of regular old Christian-killin' romantic comedy lovin', right wrist upside-down-dainty watch-wearin' "conservative" white males..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JQPublic1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.*
> 
> Your proof is the Conservative enclaves on the Westside and Southside of Chicago. Durr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a clue as to who lives on the West-side and South-side of Chicago since I dont live there,
> I assume you are referring to Black gangsters.  They are NOT liberals...those thugs are anything BUT liberal.  Some may be getting  politicians elected who favor their causes like the Mafia did to gain respectability,( I hear that is occurring} but for the most part they have been largely apolitical. BTW before you bring up the republican  vs democrat  equals conservative vs liberal BS,,, There are plenty of Democrats who are conservative and visa versa.
Click to expand...


*I don't have a clue as to who lives on the West-side and South-side of Chicago since I dont live there,
I assume you are referring to Black gangsters. They are NOT liberals
*
Are they conservatives?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...


Excellent ideas, right after we put a poll tax in place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news
> 
> 
> What is your answer candy?
> 
> We have to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two.
> 
> First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere.  The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution.  The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol.  The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere.  Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington.  As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there.  The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place.  This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine".  Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fuck up everything."  I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means.  I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger.
> 
> We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles.  The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.
> 
> This move in and of itself will have 3 effects.  First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused.  Secondly, the number of players will be reduced.  Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to.  This is important later.
> 
> The next step is legislative.  Oh boy.  It involves attacking supply and demand.
> 
> Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc.  The language goes like this:
> 
> *The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.*​The DOE could act under the first condition.  POTUS could act under the 4th.
> 
> Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:
> 
> *16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan*​
> Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc.  Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm.  So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun.  Don't worry; it's transferable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.
> 
> Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license.  That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program.  The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest.  However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years.  A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.  Jane's license is appreciating.
> 
> So 3 things happen here:
> 1.  Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment.  This shorts the chances of her selling it.
> 2.  If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy.  Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.
> 3.  Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000).  So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse.  She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check.  Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799.  So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000.  Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.
> 
> Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.
> 
> Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.
> 
> Enforcement needs to be front and center.  I would do the following:  If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap.  So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute.  And the federal rap comes with no parole.  Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap.  The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence.  Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.
> 
> Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk.  Boom; federal crime.
> Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.
> 
> Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.
> 
> Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
> Appoint armed guards at each campus.  Get rid of the strength coach  for the football team and hire some guards
> Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness.  If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> Anyway, what will happen over time is this:  Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced.  This reduces overall supply.  Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded  (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for   gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also.  Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license. That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program. The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest. However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years. A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so. Jane's license is appreciating.
> *
> You want a state to waste $10,000 per gun on your stupid proposal?
> Why is this a good idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On new purchases.  Big difference.
> 
> Actually, that will not happen.  Some guns will be sold.  Some guns will be used in a crime and the insurance policy will go to the victims.  But yes, for responsible gun owners, the "buy in" of $1,000 will pay off $10,000 if held for 10 years.  But I would think most would not cash in on it. Maybe not.  The reason is because the "buy in" will likely rise as time goes by.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A 100% return rate per year sounds really high
> *
> Yes, moronically, mind-blowingly too high.
> 
> *but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.*
> 
> Yes, that's why most state pension plans are broke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some are.  Most are solvent.
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane's license is appreciating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> For no good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


*Some are. Most are solvent.* 

Adding $10,000 costs per handgun would make them all insolvent.

*For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment*

Adding a $10,000 profit motive will cause the sales of guns to increase.


----------



## novasteve

What kind of prancing sissy thinks a black guy who targetted christians is a white supremacist conservative?


----------



## novasteve

How would limp wristed liberals think of a $10,000 abortion tax?


----------



## Obiwan

Now which do you trust... a dating website, or the Oregon Secretary of State's office???


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And thank YOU for agreeing that it is constitutional to lay a $1500 tax on abortions, done with the limit the exercise of the right to same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the constitution to prevent either thing from happening.  The difference is that guns have proven to be a menace to society.
Click to expand...

Like I said:  thank you for agreeing that it is constitutional to lay a $1500 tax on abortions, laid with the limit the exercise of the right to same


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same way, as you agreed, that a $1500 tax on abortions, laid with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to same, does not violate the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sentence doesn't make sense so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You have difficulty with plain English?
You argue that there's no constitutional prohibition to laying taxes on the exercise basic, fundamental rights with the intent to limit the exercise of said rights, including the right to an abortion.
This means you agree that a state or city or whatever could lay a $1500 tax on abortions w/o running afoul of the constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Silhouette said:


> How did we go from the shooter to abortions?


Candy believes it is constitutionally acceptable to lay intentionally restrictive taxes on the exercise of basic, fundamental rights.
She was telling us how that includes the right to an abortion, after I asked if she understood her argument necessarily so applied..


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did we go from the shooter to abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> Candy believes it is constitutionally acceptable to lay intentionally restrictive taxes on the exercise of basic, fundamental rights.
> She was telling us how that includes the right to an abortion, after I asked if she understood her argument necessarily so applied..
Click to expand...


Well no.  I never mentioned taxes.  Dipshit brought it up asking if I thought taxes could be levied on guns and abortions.  I said constitutionally it is valid.  Naturally the gun nut lies about what I said


----------



## candycorn

Obiwan said:


> View attachment 51477
> 
> Now which do you trust... a dating website, or the Oregon Secretary of State's office???



The dating website is his own words.  The dating site


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Well no.  I never mentioned taxes.  Dipshit brought it up asking if I thought taxes could be levied on guns and abortions.  I said constitutionally it is valid.  Naturally the gun nut lies about what I said


Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.


----------



## Obiwan

candycorn said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 51477
> 
> Now which do you trust... a dating website, or the Oregon Secretary of State's office???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dating website is his own words.  The dating site
Click to expand...

So do you trust the official records, or just any old lie someone tells when they're trying to get laid???

If you say the second one, I'll bet you've woke up next to some real humdingers!!!


----------



## whitehall

Ain't many conservative republicans I know that target Christians for execution. If the shooter had targeted muslems the left wing would be in a tizzy but apparently the left thinks Christians are the legitimate targets of a madman.


----------



## candycorn

Obiwan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 51477
> 
> Now which do you trust... a dating website, or the Oregon Secretary of State's office???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dating website is his own words.  The dating site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do you trust the official records, or just any old lie someone tells when they're trying to get laid???
> 
> If you say the second one, I'll bet you've woke up next to some real humdingers!!!
> View attachment 51488
Click to expand...


Calling yourself a conservative republican is probably the best birth control there is


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  I never mentioned taxes.  Dipshit brought it up asking if I thought taxes could be levied on guns and abortions.  I said constitutionally it is valid.  Naturally the gun nut lies about what I said
> 
> 
> 
> Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.
Click to expand...


Who is Noe?


----------



## Obiwan

candycorn said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 51477
> 
> Now which do you trust... a dating website, or the Oregon Secretary of State's office???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dating website is his own words.  The dating site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do you trust the official records, or just any old lie someone tells when they're trying to get laid???
> 
> If you say the second one, I'll bet you've woke up next to some real humdingers!!!
> View attachment 51488
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling yourself a conservative republican is probably the best birth control there is
Click to expand...

It probably is if you're looking to not breed with a half-wit Liberal....


----------



## rdean

Meathead said:


> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.


He has nothing to do with Obama.  Oh wait, Obama hate syndrome?  Got it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  I never mentioned taxes.  Dipshit brought it up asking if I thought taxes could be levied on guns and abortions.  I said constitutionally it is valid.  Naturally the gun nut lies about what I said
> 
> 
> 
> Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is Noe?
Click to expand...

Sorry...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.


----------



## Synthaholic

I've always thought that going after ammo was the best short term fix.  Use the State Store model that states use for liquor sales.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

So this black Muslim was a conservative Republican ehh?


----------



## Obiwan

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> I've always thought that going after ammo was the best short term fix.  Use the State Store model that states use for liquor sales.


Still waiting for your response to post 257 and 262.


----------



## Synthaholic

Obiwan said:


> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...


All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Synthaholic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> And?...Your point?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is clear:  conservative Republicans are more likely to become unhinged and commit mass murder.
> 
> They are extreme in their thought processes - this site is evidence of that
> 
> Become enraged when things don't go their way, like when Democrats actually have votes in Congress, too
> 
> Exhibit irrational paranoia, as when they are convinced the gummint is coming for their guns
> 
> Feel put upon
> 
> Feel like they are losing their White country
> 
> 
> How many more do you need?
Click to expand...

the only clear point is that you are a dyed in the wool hard core left wing moon bat that violates the very tenets of your own ideology.
You throw out these ridiculous generalizations while acting absurdly offended when others do the same.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Synthaholic said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
Click to expand...

Hey genius. The shooter is mixed race. 
FAIL


----------



## Obiwan

Synthaholic said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
Click to expand...

Guess again, Retard...


----------



## Rustic

rdean said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.
> 
> 
> 
> He has nothing to do with Obama.  Oh wait, Obama hate syndrome?  Got it.
Click to expand...


That dog won't hunt... Obama policy's are the fault not his race.

He is a intellectual do nothing lightweight... Bless his heart


----------



## Slyhunter

Synthaholic said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
Click to expand...

That include Byrd and Gore?


----------



## thereisnospoon

candycorn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crap is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem.  Just ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes., we enjoy the carnage.
> You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
> Go take a flying fuck on a rolling donut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, tell us the solution then.....
Click to expand...

The solution to WHAT?....Mental illness?......The lack of civility brought on by the influence of extreme left wing policies? This anything goes amorality that left wingers promote?....This brand of narcissism that liberalism has bred into this society that makes these people believe it is ok to act out and not consider the consequences before they act?
All of the above are caused by liberalism. 
This is not a discussion. So don't bother responding.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Rustic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed race? Another one of Obama's boys.
> 
> 
> 
> He has nothing to do with Obama.  Oh wait, Obama hate syndrome?  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That dog won't hunt... Obama policy's are the fault not his race.
> 
> He is a intellectual do nothing lightweight... Bless his heart
Click to expand...

And an elitist.
Obama and the Clintons may hate each other, but they are cut from the same stock....Over stuffed, privileged, arrogant, snobs that look down their noses on the great unwashed masses.
If anyone believes these people are in the least bit interested in the human condition of the average American, they are living in a parallel universe.


----------



## thereisnospoon

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

No..Your idea fails in the category of common sense and logic. 
Your idea is a simplistic over reaction to an event that has tragically repeated itself all too often.
Your idea seeks to strip the rights of all.
The typically liberal response is to punish the innocent to get to the guilty. Low hanging fruit.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  I never mentioned taxes.  Dipshit brought it up asking if I thought taxes could be levied on guns and abortions.  I said constitutionally it is valid.  Naturally the gun nut lies about what I said
> 
> 
> 
> Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is Noe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
Click to expand...


Wasn't disagreeing with you.

Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.


----------



## candycorn

thereisnospoon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight."  It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No..Your idea fails in the category of common sense and logic.
> Your idea is a simplistic over reaction to an event that has tragically repeated itself all too often.
> Your idea seeks to strip the rights of all.
> The typically liberal response is to punish the innocent to get to the guilty. Low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...


Factually incorrect.  Everyone who wants to buy a gun can buy one.  Not one gun currently in circulation will be confiscated unless it is used in a crime.  Do you have something against that boy?


----------



## Wildman

Synthaholic said:


> in an online dating profile.


 i described myself as a young, handsome, very rich, well educated, world traveling gentleman, looking for a young very beautiful busty blond adventurous female to share my life with.

i got over 10,000 replies with over 3,500  photos......., do you believe me????


----------



## candycorn

Wildman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> i described myself as a young, handsome, very rich, well educated, world traveling gentleman, looking for a young very beautiful busty blond adventurous female to share my life with.
> 
> i got over 10,000 replies with over 3,500  photos......., do you believe me????
Click to expand...


Never.  
Calling yourself a conservative republican basically means you're a jerk who hates everyone.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  I never mentioned taxes.  Dipshit brought it up asking if I thought taxes could be levied on guns and abortions.  I said constitutionally it is valid.  Naturally the gun nut lies about what I said
> 
> 
> 
> Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is Noe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
Click to expand...

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  I never mentioned taxes.  Dipshit brought it up asking if I thought taxes could be levied on guns and abortions.  I said constitutionally it is valid.  Naturally the gun nut lies about what I said
> 
> 
> 
> Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is Noe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
Click to expand...


According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Noe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
Click to expand...


Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Noe?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
Click to expand...

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.  



M14 Shooter said:


> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?



Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.  

My turn:


A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".  
How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.
Click to expand...

It refers to restrictions laid upon by the government that "infringe" on the right to arms.
How does your proposed restriction by the government not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
So, I ask again:
- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

I'll be happy to answer your questions, but first you must give legitimate answers to mine.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It refers to restrictions laid upon by the government that "infringe" on the right to arms.
> How does your proposed restriction by the government not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
Click to expand...

Again it doesn't.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. If that were the case The fact that you have to pay for weapons would, therefore, be an infringement on your rights.  




M14 Shooter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> So, I ask again:
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't say that at all.  Various interpretations may say that but the Constitution does not.  I can prove it:   Point to the words "unconnected" and "self-defense" and "home" in the text of the amendment below:

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

We don't want activist judges telling us what words mean; do we?



M14 Shooter said:


> I'll be happy to answer your questions, but first you must give legitimate answers to mine.



No you won't.  You can't answer them.  Because constitutionally you're on thin ice.  We all know this.


----------



## candycorn

I'll take "Shit M14 Is Too Scared To Answer" For 1,000 Alex!


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Again it doesn't.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.


It refer to actions by the state that infringe on the exercise of the right arms - the prohibition is plenary and does specifically include or exclude any specific action.
Your taxation/licensing/reinsurance requirements are all all actions by the state intended to limit the exercise of the right.
How do those actions not infringe on the right?


> Actually, it doesn't say that at all.  Various interpretations may say that but the Constitution does not.


Ah,  So you refuse to accept the law on this matter.
Since it is impossible to honestly argue with someone who chooses to be wrong, I accept your concession of the point.


> No you won't.  You can't answer them.  Because constitutionally you're on thin ice.  We all know this.


I openly laugh at you.


> A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".


The amendment protects the right of the people, not the right of the people in the militia.


> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?


The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> Again it doesn't.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.
> It refer to actions by the state that infringe on the exercise of the right arms - the prohibition is plenary and does not exclude any specific action.
> Your taxation/licensing/reinsurance requirements are all all actions by the state intended to limit the exercise of the right.
> How do those actions not infringe on the right?


Again, the text of the 2nd Amendment does not mention price at all.  Never has.  If you can show me where price was mentioned in the constitution, I'll agree what I'm suggesting is unconstitutional.  If you can't, you're referring to a judge's interpretation of the Amendment. 



M14 Shooter said:


> A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> The amendment protects the right of the people, not the right of the people in the militia.


Your interpretation is noted; as a dude on a message board, it means little. 

If the Militia (it is capitalized in the document) wasn't paramount, it wouldn't be in the document to start with.  Like if the framers wanted to ensure free speech was only intended to the newspapers, they would have put the newspapers or publishers in the document.  They didn't.  They went out of their way to put the Militia (again capitalized) into the document.  It is a telling fact that you'll ignore of course. 

So again, how can you argue that the Militia wasn't paramount when the institution was included in this amendment, but at the same time, the same authors, did not include institutions in the other amendments? 



M14 Shooter said:


> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?
> The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
> Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.


Except I just did.  Admittedly it will take time.  Admittedly, it will not stop massacres in the short term.  Admittedly, it may not stop them in the long term.  But it will reduce them.  Less guns=less gun crime.  As was proven all over Europe and Australia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it doesn't.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.
> It refer to actions by the state that infringe on the exercise of the right arms - the prohibition is plenary and does not exclude any specific action.
> Your taxation/licensing/reinsurance requirements are all all actions by the state intended to limit the exercise of the right.
> How do those actions not infringe on the right?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the text of the 2nd Amendment does not mention price at all.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> The amendment protects the right of the people, not the right of the people in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation is noted; as a dude on a message board, it means little.
Click to expand...

My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, maningful in any way?


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
> Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.
> 
> 
> 
> Except I just did
Click to expand...

You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.


----------



## Slyhunter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Noe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
Click to expand...

If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Slyhunter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Noe?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but..  dig this... the 2nd doesn't state that the government can't force you to buy insurance for your gun, so it isn't an infringement.


----------



## Slyhunter

M14 Shooter said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but..  dig this... the 2nd doesn't state that the government can't force you to buy insurance for your gun, so it isn't an infringement.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say the government can't force you to buy roses for your gun either, but if we changed the law requiring a rose for every gun it would still be an infringement.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Slyhunter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but..  dig this... the 2nd doesn't state that the government can't force you to buy insurance for your gun, so it isn't an infringement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't say the government can't force you to buy roses for your gun either, but if we changed the law requiring a rose for every gun it would still be an infringement.
Click to expand...

Of course.
Candy's argument is absurd on its face; the only person who doesn't understand this is Candy.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican | Page 33 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


I'll take "Candy is too scared to answer" for $2000, Alex.


----------



## jc456

JQPublic1 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
Click to expand...

so who does all the shooting and killing in the inner cities?


----------



## S.J.

jc456 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so who does all the shooting and killing in the inner cities?
Click to expand...

That doesn't count, it's not on the news.


----------



## jc456

S.J. said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is.  The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them  frequently train to  hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican.  Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine  as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he  was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to  shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before  he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
> Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so who does all the shooting and killing in the inner cities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't count, it's not on the news.
Click to expand...

bingo!!!!!

The only thing on the news is nightly news updates with the deaths of little inner city kids and the daily march down the street that black lives matter. Still unclear who that is directed at.


----------



## Synthaholic

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey genius. The shooter is mixed race.
> FAIL
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be directing this to Obiwan - you know, the one who said he was a White Supremacist?


----------



## Synthaholic

Obiwan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again, Retard...
> View attachment 51512
Click to expand...

Guess again . . . what?

Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative.  So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?  



Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?

I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.


----------



## jc456

Synthaholic said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again, Retard...
> View attachment 51512
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again . . . what?
> 
> Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative.  So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?
> 
> I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.
Click to expand...

why does he need to defend them. Did they do something?  I missed it in the paper.


----------



## theHawk

novasteve said:


> What kind of prancing sissy thinks a black guy who targetted christians is a white supremacist conservative?



The same people that think a cross-dressing faggot is a female just because he self-identifies as a "woman."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Delta4Embassy said:


> (posted 21 mins ago)
> 
> Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi's
> 
> "Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi’s




Yep... Straight, down the line Prog.  ANOTHER obama constituent:   DOWN!


----------



## Obiwan

Synthaholic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey genius. The shooter is mixed race.
> FAIL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shouldn't you be directing this to Obiwan - you know, the one who said he was a White Supremacist?
Click to expand...

Take it up with the LA Times...

Gun-obsessed, timid, and his mom called him &apos;baby&apos;: What we know of Chris Harper-Mercer&apos;s life


----------



## Obiwan

Synthaholic said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again, Retard...
> View attachment 51512
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again . . . what?
> 
> Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative.  So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?
> 
> I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.
Click to expand...

It's actually pretty apparent he was a Socialist...
Chris Harper Mercer’s Politics: What You Need to Know
Despite identifying himself as a conservative, on his MySpace page, Harper-Mercer posted numerous photos of the Irish Republican Army’s provisional incarnation. That group was openly fighting for a socialist Irish republic, which would be at odds with Harper-Mercer’s conservative leanings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
Click to expand...


*A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?* 

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Synthaholic

theHawk said:


> The same people that think a cross-dressing faggot is a female just because he self-identifies as a "woman."


He definitely is a cross-dresser, but what makes him a faggot?

I don't think you know what words mean, little wingnut.


----------



## Synthaholic

Obiwan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again, Retard...
> View attachment 51512
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again . . . what?
> 
> Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative.  So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?
> 
> I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually pretty apparent he was a Socialist...
> Chris Harper Mercer’s Politics: What You Need to Know
> Despite identifying himself as a conservative, on his MySpace page, Harper-Mercer posted numerous photos of the Irish Republican Army’s provisional incarnation. That group was openly fighting for a socialist Irish republic, which would be at odds with Harper-Mercer’s conservative leanings.
Click to expand...

How do you know that was the reason he supported the IRA?

Maybe he hated Protestants.
Maybe he hated oppressive governments imposing their will
Maybe he was in favor of Ireland belonging to the Irish, which is Nationalism - definitely a conservative trait.
Maybe he identified with IRA random violence.
Maybe he's part Irish.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore the word "regulated".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to ignore the word "regulated".
Click to expand...



 Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...


The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to ignore the word "regulated".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?


No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.



M14 Shooter said:


> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, maningful in any way?


The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.  



M14 Shooter said:


> The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
> Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.


Except I just did
[/quote]
You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.[/QUOTE]

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.
Click to expand...


The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to ignore the word "regulated".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.
Click to expand...


It didn't say well regulated arms.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Obiwan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...
> 
> 
> 
> All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again, Retard...
> View attachment 51512
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess again . . . what?
> 
> Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative.  So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?
> 
> I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually pretty apparent he was a Socialist...
> Chris Harper Mercer’s Politics: What You Need to Know
> Despite identifying himself as a conservative, on his MySpace page, Harper-Mercer posted numerous photos of the Irish Republican Army’s provisional incarnation. That group was openly fighting for a socialist Irish republic, which would be at odds with Harper-Mercer’s conservative leanings.
Click to expand...


Harper did not 'identify himself' as an American.

Its account was hacked after he committed Leftism.

But it is hysterical that the Left has created a Conservative Republican, persecuting Christians! (_In every sense of the word!_)

ROFLMNAO!

YOU CAN *NOT* MAKE THAT CRAP UP!

​


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.
Click to expand...


Which was likely their intent.  We've just interpreted it differently.  A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Synthaholic said:


> It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.



The word "regulated" did not mean RESTRICTED... _dumbass, in the mid-late 18th century, 'regulated' conveyed _ 'structured, equipped, ordered'.

The thing you idiots never seem capable of understanding is that the BILL OF RIGHTS, preserved the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise it's _INDIVIDUAL_ RIGHTS... and that in terms of the Militia, it is comprised exclusively of INDIVIDUALS, who due to security being essential to the state of freedom... their rights to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, is not to be screwed with by those of subversive intent.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

*Ethnicity: Mixed Race*

*Ruh roh, CNN!*


----------



## candycorn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "regulated" did not mean RESTRICTED... _dumbass, in the mid-late 18th century, 'regulated' conveyed _ 'structured, equipped, ordered'.
> 
> The thing you idiots never seem capable of understanding is that the BILL OF RIGHTS, preserved the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise it's _INDIVIDUAL_ RIGHTS... and that in terms of the Militia, it is comprised exclusively of INDIVIDUALS, who due to security being essential to the state of freedom... their rights to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, is not to be screwed with by those of subversive intent.
Click to expand...


Great, so you agree all gun owners should be a member of a "well regulated militia" and your ownership should be based on that membership.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Check it, people. The non propoganda thread on this matter:

Oregon Gunman: Black Lives Matter Advocate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## jon_berzerk

Luddly Neddite said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana shooter openly admired Westboro Baptist Church and Hitler - Gay Star News
> 
> "Another tweet, dated the day before, supported the notoriously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church:
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church may be the last real church in America[members not brainwashed].
> 
> — *john russell houser (@jrustyhouser)* June 5, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> John Russell Houser: another proud USMessageboard Conservative Republican!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few posters here who sound like they're one post away from opening fire.
Click to expand...



yeah like you loser 

--LOL


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Great, so you agree all gun owners should be a member of a "well regulated militia" and your ownership should be based on that membership.



I agree that every able-bodied male *IS* 'The Militia'.  Because in reality, every able-bodied male *IS* the militia.  With membership being 'present' and 'able-bodied male'; the responsibility for which is to be well armed, including ammunition and well trained in the use of those arms.

Is there something about that fact, that confuses you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Check it, people. The non propoganda thread on this matter:
> 
> Oregon Gunman: Black Lives Matter Advocate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Huh... Color me *SHOCKED!*


----------



## Obiwan

candycorn said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "regulated" did not mean RESTRICTED... _dumbass, in the mid-late 18th century, 'regulated' conveyed _ 'structured, equipped, ordered'.
> 
> The thing you idiots never seem capable of understanding is that the BILL OF RIGHTS, preserved the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise it's _INDIVIDUAL_ RIGHTS... and that in terms of the Militia, it is comprised exclusively of INDIVIDUALS, who due to security being essential to the state of freedom... their rights to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, is not to be screwed with by those of subversive intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you agree all gun owners should be a member of a "well regulated militia" and your ownership should be based on that membership.
Click to expand...

Since numerous SCOTUS decisions affirm the fundamental right to own firearms, even going as far as to rule local gun control laws unconstitutional (as in the case of _District of Columbia vs Heller)__, _you're out of gas.

Evidently, you're no better of a lawyer than Hillary, who was FIRED from her first job for unethical behavior.
_
_


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
Click to expand...

Your positron fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
Click to expand...

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
Click to expand...

Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.


If the framers had meant to exclusively protect the rights of the people while in a militia, they would not have said the "...the right of the people..."


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.


Where does it say "well-regulated arms"?
Where does it say "the right of the people while serving in the militia"?
Why do you refuse to accept the established fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...
> Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
Click to expand...

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
Click to expand...



Different members of the court now.  These people actually seem to read the papers.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution.


Candy clearly chooses to reject reality and substitute her own.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your positron fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
> As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
> And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
> How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer the questions put to you
> Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
> The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
> This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.
Click to expand...


Well done sir!

Surgical... and final.  (Doesn't mean that the idiots recognize that they've no where else remaining to go, as they'll just repeat their idiocy as if it hasn't been refuted.)


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that.  I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms.  Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms.  That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
Click to expand...



I support all Supreme Court decisions.  I don't like them all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Different members of the court now.  These people actually seem to read the papers.
Click to expand...

So you get to disagree with the Supreme Court cause you don't like a ruling but anyone else is stupid ignorant or high if they disagree right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support all Supreme Court decisions.  I don't like them all.
Click to expand...

If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Different members of the court now.  These people actually seem to read the papers.



Heller majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
McDonnel Majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
What's changed?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well done sir!
> Surgical... and final.  (Doesn't mean that the idiots recognize that they've no where else remaining to go, as they'll just repeat their idiocy as if it hasn't been refuted.)


I'd say that she simply won't admit to herself that she has nowhere to go, but first she has to realize it....


----------



## jc456

Funny how these leftist k00ks hate profiling and the hypocrites post threads profiling. They are entertainment to say the least, our hypocritical entertainment.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

M14 Shooter said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done sir!
> Surgical... and final.  (Doesn't mean that the idiots recognize that they've no where else remaining to go, as they'll just repeat their idiocy as if it hasn't been refuted.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that she simply won't admit to herself that she has nowhere to go, but first she has to realize it....
Click to expand...


It's a Relativist.  Lacking the means to reason objectively will preclude it from any sense of introspection.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was likely their intent.  We've just interpreted it differently.  A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.
Click to expand...


*Which was likely their intent.*

Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!

*A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.*

Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Which was likely their intent.  We've just interpreted it differently.  A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.




Americans do not get our rights from SCOTUS... and we don't ask SCOTUS for permission to exercise those rights.

And as it stands right now, Americans no longer consent to be governed by Leftists and their rejection of all sense of loyalty to the agreement on which our consent has long rested.

You feel that the federal government doesn't need our consent... and it is that which separates you from any kinship with America and why you and the cult are unable to be counted as Americans.


----------



## Dot Com

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk


----------



## Dot Com

Ravi said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!
> 
> Massive thread fail.
> 
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> This calendar view maps the number of times Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm judging you based on your ignorance. No surprise you can't admit to being wrong.
Click to expand...

yeah Zander sheesh

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk


----------



## thereisnospoon

candycorn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost  the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
> Every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Point to where it says that in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh... THAT game.   OK...
> A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion  does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
> A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
> A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
> Surely, you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested.  Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No..Your idea fails in the category of common sense and logic.
> Your idea is a simplistic over reaction to an event that has tragically repeated itself all too often.
> Your idea seeks to strip the rights of all.
> The typically liberal response is to punish the innocent to get to the guilty. Low hanging fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Factually incorrect.  Everyone who wants to buy a gun can buy one.  Not one gun currently in circulation will be confiscated unless it is used in a crime.  Do you have something against that boy?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't......The typical all or nothing straw man response seen from the left indicates that.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to ignore the word "regulated".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.
Click to expand...

The term regulated speaks specifically to militia.....
What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Different members of the court now.  These people actually seem to read the papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you get to disagree with the Supreme Court cause you don't like a ruling but anyone else is stupid ignorant or high if they disagree right?
Click to expand...

 
Stupid?  No.
Ignorant?  Not really.  Those who vow defiance are pretty ignorant.  Those who practice defiance are incredibly ignorant. 
High?  Not sure.  Depends on the person. 

I can think of a number of laws on the books that are useless and are way too restrictive.  Do I obey them?  Yes.  But I think they are ignorant.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.  And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any).  So you're wrong; yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support all Supreme Court decisions.  I don't like them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
Click to expand...

 
The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide. 

Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different members of the court now.  These people actually seem to read the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller majority:
> Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
> McDonnel Majority:
> Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
> What's changed?
Click to expand...

 





The scarlett tide of blood from people who haven't reached puberty may change the minds of some justices.  Changing some justices will undobutedly do the same.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was likely their intent.  We've just interpreted it differently.  A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which was likely their intent.*
> 
> Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!
> 
> *A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.*
> 
> Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
> And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.
Click to expand...

 
Remains to be seen.  Right now, her chances look very good for not only winning but replacing Scalia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?*
> 
> Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was likely their intent.  We've just interpreted it differently.  A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which was likely their intent.*
> 
> Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!
> 
> *A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.*
> 
> Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
> And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remains to be seen.  Right now, her chances look very good for not only winning but replacing Scalia.
Click to expand...


She can't win if she's indicted.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.


Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
_Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
Click to expand...

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
Click to expand...

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
Click to expand...

Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was likely their intent.  We've just interpreted it differently.  A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which was likely their intent.*
> 
> Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!
> 
> *A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.*
> 
> Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
> And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remains to be seen.  Right now, her chances look very good for not only winning but replacing Scalia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She can't win if she's indicted.
Click to expand...


She won't be indicted and she will win.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
Click to expand...


Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
Click to expand...

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
> As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
> And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
> How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?
Click to expand...

An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.



M14 Shooter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer the questions put to you
> Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
Click to expand...

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.



M14 Shooter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
> The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
> This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
Click to expand...


No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.
Click to expand...


*I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.*

For instance, the change in the number of states that allow concealed carry.
You're on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
> As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
> And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
> How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer the questions put to you
> Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
> The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
> This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.
Click to expand...

*
Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
*
So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.


You are absolutely, demonstrably and willfully, incorrect.
Proof that you understand your argument here has failed.



> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.


You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?



> Not sure what you are arguing here


I'm arguing that your "plan" will -not- prevent mass shootings, as you claim,  because people will still have access to guns.
That being the case, there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to consider your idea in any way.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.
Click to expand...

Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.*
> 
> For instance, the change in the number of states that allow concealed carry.
> You're on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...


Now that is hilarious. Thanks for another reason to laugh at the gun crazies.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.
Click to expand...

Yet here you are asking for more of it.  Couple this with your blood lust and you likely have some mental problems.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet here you are asking for more of it.
Click to expand...

I have not asked more of your commentary regarding your failed point about changes in the court; I am pointing out that it is meaningless.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> Not sure what you are arguing here


I'm arguing that your "plan" will -not- prevent mass shootings, as you claim,  because people will still have access to guns.
That being the case, there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to consider your idea in any way.[/QUOTE]

We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly.  No need for me to spike the football.  

The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces. 

OF all the gun junkies that are roaming the streets right now, anyone of them can get a gun no questions asked from a well constructed loophole or from their parent's arsenal.  Or one they can buy themselves if they can beat the background tests. 

You close the loophole by having the sellers there have to issue the insurance policy with the sale.  So that is closed off to them.
Their parents will buy fewer
You make the price higher and fewer of these gun junkies will be buying guns or they will buy fewer

At the very least, gun purchases by these junkies will be discouraged.
Monetarily, they will be limited.
And thus, you give kids hiding in their classrooms a fighting chance since he was "only" able to load 1 weapon in advance and not 3.  

In the very least, the insurance policy will compensate victims of these devices.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> 
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet here you are asking for more of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have not asked more of your commentary regarding your failed point about changes in the court; I am pointing out that it is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Yet here you are asking for more.  

I have no illusions about the ease of moving the gun-crazies further into the margins of society.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
> As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
> And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
> How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer the questions put to you
> Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
> The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
> This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.


Ah,  You're delusional.  Oh...


> The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.


Irrelevant.
People will still have guns.
You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.


You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,  You're delusional.  Oh...
> 
> 
> 
> The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> People will still have guns.
> You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.
Click to expand...


If you can quote me where I said it will "prevent" it, I'll apologize.  If not, oh well, another victory.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL did not answer the questions:
> Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
Click to expand...


The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment.  It is there for a reason.  The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,  You're delusional.  Oh...
> 
> 
> 
> The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> People will still have guns.
> You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can quote me where I said it will "prevent" it, I'll apologize.  If not, oh well, another victory.
Click to expand...

Post 326



> M14 Shooter said:
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?
> *The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
> Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Except I just did*.
Click to expand...

You may now apologize.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL did not answer the questions:
> Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment.  It is there for a reason.  The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.
Click to expand...

So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
I accept your concession.


----------



## Slyhunter

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,  You're delusional.  Oh...
> 
> 
> 
> The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> People will still have guns.
> You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can quote me where I said it will "prevent" it, I'll apologize.  If not, oh well, another victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 326
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?
> *The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
> Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except I just did*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may now apologize.
Click to expand...

Not enough time to go back and look at it.  I'll take your word for it.  

I apologize.  Outside of total confiscation, nothing will get rid of guns.  My plan will limit the pool of guns available.  And that will discourage some of the psychopaths from commiting these mass shootings.  While the NRA continues to lie about availability being the only true cause for gun violence and blames "mental illness" for the near monthly bloodbath it has created, the supposedly "mentally ill" are beholden to the same market forces as the rest of us.  Price guns out of their means of affording them, and you won't have as many "mentally ill" folks buying guns.  Too bad.


----------



## candycorn

Slyhunter said:


> Is a gun tax an infringement?
> Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.



Point to the part of the constitution that says that.


----------



## Papageorgio

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,  You're delusional.  Oh...
> 
> 
> 
> The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> People will still have guns.
> You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.
Click to expand...


I see where this issue is avoided.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL did not answer the questions:
> Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment.  It is there for a reason.  The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
> I accept your concession.
Click to expand...


Militia...it's in there for a reason.  For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
> _Roe v Wade_ will be overturned before _Heller_.
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen.   Likely neither one will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm a political realist.  Change comes slowly if at all.*
> 
> For instance, the change in the number of states that allow concealed carry.
> You're on the wrong side of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is hilarious. Thanks for another reason to laugh at the gun crazies.
Click to expand...


*Now that is hilarious






*
Why is that hilarious?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
> Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
> As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
> And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
> How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation?  I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
> Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer the questions put to you
> Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
> The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
> This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
Click to expand...


A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.
> 
> 
> 
> Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
> As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
> And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
> How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  Your argument otherwise is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not answer the questions put to you
> Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
> The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
> This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
Click to expand...


???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
> As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
> And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
> How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?
> 
> 
> 
> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not answer the questions put to you
> Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah -- the a priori bomb.   A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
> The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
> This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
Click to expand...


If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
Click to expand...


Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
Click to expand...


Your idea was?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Not enough time to go back and look at it.  I'll take your word for it.
> I apologize.  Outside of total confiscation, nothing will get rid of guns.


Short of getting rid of all guns, nothing will prevent mass shootings.

1 gun out of every 36500 is involved in a murder; how does the misuse of that one gun justify the draconian infringements you propose for the 36500 others?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a gun tax an infringement?
> Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Point to the part of the constitution that says that.
Click to expand...

We've been through this;  you lost.
The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL did not answer the questions:
> Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment.  It is there for a reason.  The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
> I accept your concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia...it's in there for a reason.  For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.
Click to expand...

Speaking of not being able to read....
Nowhere does the Constitution say ""...the right of the people in a militia shall not be infringed".
Thus, your claim to that effect holds no water.


----------



## Slyhunter

candycorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a gun tax an infringement?
> Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point to the part of the constitution that says that.
Click to expand...

Sales tax is a government infringememt on our right to buy guns.


----------



## candycorn

Slyhunter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a gun tax an infringement?
> Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point to the part of the constitution that says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sales tax is a government infringememt on our right to buy guns.
Click to expand...


It says that in the Constitution?  Oh wait, it doesn't?  Interesting.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL did not answer the questions:
> Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment.  It is there for a reason.  The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
> I accept your concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia...it's in there for a reason.  For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of not being able to read....
> Nowhere does the Constitution say ""...the right of the people in a militia shall not be infringed".
> Thus, your claim to that effect holds no water.
Click to expand...


Of course, I never made that claim but don't let the truth stand in the way of a cool story bro.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a gun tax an infringement?
> Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Point to the part of the constitution that says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been through this;  you lost.
> The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.
Click to expand...


Never lost an argument with you.  Just like I never said tax the guns.  

I'm tired of taking victory laps....goodbye for now.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
Click to expand...


The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL did not answer the questions:
> Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
> How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment.  It is there for a reason.  The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
> I accept your concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia...it's in there for a reason.  For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of not being able to read....
> Nowhere does the Constitution say ""...the right of the people in a militia shall not be infringed".
> Thus, your claim to that effect holds no water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, I never made that claim but don't let the truth stand in the way of a cool story bro.
Click to expand...

Snicker...
What the was the text of your claim?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a gun tax an infringement?
> Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Point to the part of the constitution that says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been through this;  you lost.
> The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never lost an argument with you.
Click to expand...

Just like now, you've run away from every argument you;ve ever had with me -- because you know you lost.;


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
Click to expand...


Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
Click to expand...

Because, as you know, the 24th Amendment only talks abut taxes, not licenses or other fees to vote.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

M14 Shooter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, as you know, the 24th Amendment only talks abut taxes, not licenses or other fees to vote.
Click to expand...


Yes, a $500 license "fee" would be okay.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a gun tax an infringement?
> Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Point to the part of the constitution that says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been through this;  you lost.
> The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never lost an argument with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like now, you've run away from every argument you;ve ever had with me -- because you know you lost.;
Click to expand...



Now that is hilarious 

Re read the constitution and perhaps you'll be able to hold your own next time.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
Click to expand...


Sure I would but you should get your candidate to bring that up as an idea.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I would but you should get your candidate to bring that up as an idea.
Click to expand...


*Sure I would
*
Why?


----------



## Papageorgio

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
Click to expand...


It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.


----------



## candycorn

Papageorgio said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
Click to expand...


Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
Click to expand...


*Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
*
My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Papageorgio said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
Click to expand...


You're right, not a tax.
We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.


----------



## Papageorgio

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, not a tax.
> We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
> Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I think insuring our rights will catch on.


----------



## Papageorgio

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
Click to expand...


I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
Click to expand...


What harm would come to you?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, not a tax.
> We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
> Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Yeah, run with that....LOL.


----------



## candycorn

Papageorgio said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.
Click to expand...

When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal.  Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place. 

Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.


----------



## Papageorgio

candycorn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal.  Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.
> 
> Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.
Click to expand...


Just keep them out of the hands of the poor. No reason that they should need protection.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What harm would come to you?
Click to expand...


The list is very long.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, not a tax.
> We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
> Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, run with that....LOL.
Click to expand...


Just like you should run with your idea.
How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal.  Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.
> 
> Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.
Click to expand...

*
Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.*

Or voting.


----------



## thereisnospoon

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> - How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> - What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support all Supreme Court decisions.  I don't like them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
Click to expand...

KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes. 
But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
There is a bunch of you. But not enough. 
BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.


----------



## thereisnospoon

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different members of the court now.  These people actually seem to read the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller majority:
> Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
> McDonnel Majority:
> Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
> What's changed?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scarlett tide of blood from people who haven't reached puberty may change the minds of some justices.  Changing some justices will undobutedly do the same.
Click to expand...

THe SCOTUS cannot change the US Constitution.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> No.



Yea, not even before he's about to blow his brains out does he want to be known as a liberal.

I can't blame him.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, not a tax.
> We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
> Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, run with that....LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you should run with your idea.
> How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!
Click to expand...

 
332-206...they got over it nicely.


----------



## candycorn

thereisnospoon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different members of the court now.  These people actually seem to read the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller majority:
> Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
> McDonnel Majority:
> Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
> What's changed?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scarlett tide of blood from people who haven't reached puberty may change the minds of some justices.  Changing some justices will undobutedly do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THe SCOTUS cannot change the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

 
They needn't.

Just read it where it says Militia with a capital M and voila!


----------



## candycorn

thereisnospoon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the 2nd amendment refers to  pricing.   What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.
> 
> Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> My turn:
> 
> 
> A "well regulated militia" is in the document.  How can it be argued that there is *constitutional* protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?  Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
> How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?  As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained.  The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support all Supreme Court decisions.  I don't like them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
Click to expand...

 
Time will tell. 

Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.


----------



## candycorn

Papageorgio said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal.  Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.
> 
> Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep them out of the hands of the poor. No reason that they should need protection.
Click to expand...

 
They are not in the hands of the poor by and large now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
> Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, not a tax.
> We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
> Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, run with that....LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you should run with your idea.
> How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206...they got over it nicely.
Click to expand...


*332-206...they got over it nicely.
*
Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> An infringement is an infringement.  You cannot argue one and not argue the other.  Sorry.
> 
> The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.
> 
> Not sure what you are arguing here.  Not that it matters.  *Nothing* I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
Click to expand...

If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?


----------



## Searcher44

Synthaholic said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just willful ignorance or outright lying on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, dope - produce a Liberal Democrat mass murderer.
Click to expand...

 
You Libs are too damn lazy to get off your ass and do anything as strenuous as mass murder, eh?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, not a tax.
> We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
> Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, run with that....LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you should run with your idea.
> How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206...they got over it nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *332-206...they got over it nicely.
> *
> Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.
Click to expand...


Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
Click to expand...

*
If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*

Is the manufacturer the government?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, not a tax.
> We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
> Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, run with that....LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you should run with your idea.
> How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206...they got over it nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *332-206...they got over it nicely.
> *
> Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.
Click to expand...


You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.


----------



## dannyboys

candycorn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support all Supreme Court decisions.  I don't like them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
Click to expand...

A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?


No.
Why would anyone think it does?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
Click to expand...


Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, run with that....LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you should run with your idea.
> How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206...they got over it nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *332-206...they got over it nicely.
> *
> Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
Click to expand...


You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
Click to expand...


You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you should run with your idea.
> How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 332-206...they got over it nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *332-206...they got over it nicely.
> *
> Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
Click to expand...


Didn't stop his whining.
Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.


----------



## candycorn

dannyboys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support all Supreme Court decisions.  I don't like them all.
> 
> 
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
Click to expand...


There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them. 

The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them.
> 
> The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.
Click to expand...


*She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush
*
Not to mention, breaking the law, mishandling classified info and endangering national security.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?
Click to expand...


Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.  It will be, for lack of a better term, a convertible annuity.  I called it "insurance" because first and foremost, we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.  At the same time, to make it appetizing to the owners, you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them.
> 
> The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush
> *
> Not to mention, breaking the law, mishandling classified info and endangering national security.
Click to expand...


yawn....


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 332-206...they got over it nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *332-206...they got over it nicely.
> *
> Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't stop his whining.
> Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
> He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.
Click to expand...


So weak, the GOP is scared to face him.  Where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?  You've guys had the Congress for a year.....Obama has had to veto 0.00 bills.  

You guys are pussies.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Why would anyone think it does?
Click to expand...


When you move the goal posts like that, make sure you lift with your knees.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.  It will be, for lack of a better term, a convertible annuity.  I called it "insurance" because first and foremost, we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.  At the same time, to make it appetizing to the owners, you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets.
Click to expand...


*  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.
*
A government required $1000 bond (or insurance policy or whatever) that can be sold back for $10,000 after 10 years doesn't involve market forces.
*
 we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.*

So my gun gets stolen, what good is my $1000 "insurance" if the gun is used to shoot someone?

*you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets*

No State Pension fund in the country is going to earn the 26% per year, for 10 years, to pay off $10,000 at that time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *332-206...they got over it nicely.
> *
> Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't stop his whining.
> Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
> He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So weak, the GOP is scared to face him.  Where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?  You've guys had the Congress for a year.....Obama has had to veto 0.00 bills.
> 
> You guys are pussies.
Click to expand...


Yup. Pussies who make him whine.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.  It will be, for lack of a better term, a convertible annuity.  I called it "insurance" because first and foremost, we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.  At the same time, to make it appetizing to the owners, you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.
> *
> A government required $1000 bond (or insurance policy or whatever) that can be sold back for $10,000 after 10 years doesn't involve market forces.
Click to expand...

*
Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down.  Sales go down, manufacturing decreases.  Dries up the pool.

The bond/policy/annuity promotes you to hold on to your weapon instead of selling it. Dries up the pool.

Do you disagree?



Toddsterpatriot said:



			we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> So my gun gets stolen, what good is my $1000 "insurance" if the gun is used to shoot someone?


The insurance is for the victim.  If you want to buy theft insurance, call Allstate.  It also makes the theft a gun crime in addition to the use of the weapon to shoot someone.  The burglar is on the hook for a long federal sentence now under my plan. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets*
> 
> No State Pension fund in the country is going to earn the 26% per year, for 10 years, to pay off $10,000 at that time.



I suggest you ask someone with a State pension what their contributions are matched at.  Mine was 225% back at Harris County Texas.  

But if you wish to make the term longer--lets say 20 years or make the cap $7,500 or $5K in 10 that is still a 13% return if you did the math right--that's cool.  

The point is to use market forces.  The 2nd Amendment is patently outdated but totally unassailable.  So we have to live with it and any remedy to the violence is spawns will have to be attractive.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't stop his whining.
> Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
> He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So weak, the GOP is scared to face him.  Where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?  You've guys had the Congress for a year.....Obama has had to veto 0.00 bills.
> 
> You guys are pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Pussies who make him whine.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question....where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.  It will be, for lack of a better term, a convertible annuity.  I called it "insurance" because first and foremost, we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.  At the same time, to make it appetizing to the owners, you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.
> *
> A government required $1000 bond (or insurance policy or whatever) that can be sold back for $10,000 after 10 years doesn't involve market forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down.  Sales go down, manufacturing decreases.  Dries up the pool.
> 
> The bond/policy/annuity promotes you to hold on to your weapon instead of selling it. Dries up the pool.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So my gun gets stolen, what good is my $1000 "insurance" if the gun is used to shoot someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The insurance is for the victim.  If you want to buy theft insurance, call Allstate.  It also makes the theft a gun crime in addition to the use of the weapon to shoot someone.  The burglar is on the hook for a long federal sentence now under my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets*
> 
> No State Pension fund in the country is going to earn the 26% per year, for 10 years, to pay off $10,000 at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you ask someone with a State pension what their contributions are matched at.  Mine was 225% back at Harris County Texas.
> 
> But if you wish to make the term longer--lets say 20 years or make the cap $7,500 or $5K in 10 that is still a 13% return if you did the math right--that's cool.
> 
> The point is to use market forces.  The 2nd Amendment is patently outdated but totally unassailable.  So we have to live with it and any remedy to the violence is spawns will have to be attractive.
Click to expand...


*Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down. 
*
I already have my gun, why would the price go up?

*Do you disagree?
*
Yes. The bond doesn't do anything to my supply.

*The insurance is for the victim.* 

The victim gets $1000? Big deal.

* It also makes the theft a gun crime in addition to the use of the weapon to shoot someone.
*
It's already against the law to steal a gun and shoot someone.
*
I suggest you ask someone with a State pension what their contributions are matched at.  Mine was 225% back at Harris County Texas.* 

The gun owner is not an employee. The state is not going to match his "bond" based on a Federal law. Do you think a broke state, like Illinois, has an extra $9000 to cough up after 10 years? Or even a state with a balanced budget?

*But if you wish to make the term longer--lets say 20 years or make the cap $7,500 or $5K in 10 that is still a 13% return if you did the math right--that's cool.* 

Nope. A 13% return for 10 years only gets you to about $3400.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
Click to expand...

The insurance is mandated by law, thus the government, through the mandate, infringes on the right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.



Artificially driving up the price of guns isn't using "market forces".


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Why would anyone think it does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you move the goal posts like that, make sure you lift with your knees.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how this is an example of moving the goalposts - because it isn't.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
Click to expand...

Uh...no.  That's why I'm asking you if you think that would also be an infringement.

Try to follow along.  I can't hold your hand all the time.  Plus, it's always clammy.


----------



## Synthaholic

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and that has really hamstrung Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't stop his whining.
> Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
> He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So weak, the GOP is scared to face him.  Where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?  You've guys had the Congress for a year.....Obama has had to veto 0.00 bills.
> 
> You guys are pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Pussies who make him whine.
Click to expand...

And that advances conservatism...how?

Oh, right - it gets demagogues with *zero* accomplishments, like Ted Cruz, reelected.

All the while, The Left keeps winning.


----------



## Jroc

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't stop his whining.
> Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
> He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So weak, the GOP is scared to face him.  Where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?  You've guys had the Congress for a year.....Obama has had to veto 0.00 bills.
> 
> You guys are pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Pussies who make him whine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that advances conservatism...how?
> 
> Oh, right - it gets demagogues with *zero* accomplishments, like Ted Cruz, reelected.
> 
> All the while, The Left keeps winning.
Click to expand...


Obama's accomplishments before he becoming president, pale in comparison to those of Ted Cruz ..You clown


----------



## candycorn

Jroc said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't stop his whining.
> Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
> He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So weak, the GOP is scared to face him.  Where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?  You've guys had the Congress for a year.....Obama has had to veto 0.00 bills.
> 
> You guys are pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Pussies who make him whine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that advances conservatism...how?
> 
> Oh, right - it gets demagogues with *zero* accomplishments, like Ted Cruz, reelected.
> 
> All the while, The Left keeps winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's accomplishments before he becoming president, pale in comparison to those of Ted Cruz ..You clown
Click to expand...


Which are?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down.
> *
> I already have my gun, why would the price go up?


Nothing in my plan does one thing to affect firearms that have already been purchased unless they are used in a crime.   If you have 3 guns, 30 guns, 300 guns or 3,000 guns on hand and you're a private individual, you needn't purchase anything new except ammo when you run out. 

Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The insurance is for the victim.*
> The victim gets $1000? Big deal.


As stated, the device is not really an insurance policy; it acts more like a convertible annuity at this point.  If the gun is used in a crime, the system could be set up to where they would receive more since there is a State match going on. 

The only thing they receive now is a bill for a funeral (likely on top of a medical bill).  So "big deal" is exactly that in some cases. 

I love the callusness of the gun crazies; it highlights who has society's best interest at heart and who is just out for themselves. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> * It also makes the theft a gun crime in addition to the use of the weapon to shoot someone.
> *
> It's already against the law to steal a gun and shoot someone.


We all know that State crimes are ineffective due to paroles, probation, good behavior, etc...  Federal boys don't play that way.  Being 7 states away to where you see nobody from da hood for 10 years is probably a good thing. Now that will change as Fed pens fill up. You're likely to see someone from the old neighborhood.  But the old "all the comforts of home" bullshit has to stop.  I also think that once we stop incarcerating people for smoking tree and frankly "grow up" as a nation, you'll see more room in the prisons and more robust prosecutions of those who deserve it. 

*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			I suggest you ask someone with a State pension what their contributions are matched at.  Mine was 225% back at Harris County Texas.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> The gun owner is not an employee. The state is not going to match his "bond" based on a Federal law. Do you think a broke state, like Illinois, has an extra $9000 to cough up after 10 years? Or even a state with a balanced budget?


This is a valid concern.  There are budgetary pressures that can't be ignored.  Smaller population states (those that do not have the same pension commitments) may have to carry the water for a while on this. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But if you wish to make the term longer--lets say 20 years or make the cap $7,500 or $5K in 10 that is still a 13% return if you did the math right--that's cool.*
> 
> Nope. A 13% return for 10 years only gets you to about $3400.


Well, you brought up 26%; I didn't put pen to paper on it.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The insurance is mandated by law, thus the government, through the mandate, infringes on the right.
Click to expand...


Oh? Well, by that strange argument, the government, through mandating you have hot water in the bathroom or a padlock on the Sudafed increases the business owner's costs and therefore drives up the price of guns and,therefore, infringes!!!!

Give it up sonny.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the price of guns isn't using "market forces".
Click to expand...


Sure it is.


----------



## dannyboys

candycorn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.  Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy.  Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.
> *
> My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
> Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal.  Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.
> 
> Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep them out of the hands of the poor. No reason that they should need protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not in the hands of the poor by and large now.
Click to expand...

99.999% of illegal guns are in the hands of the poor. 99% of murders using a gun are committed by the 'poor' AKA negros.
 Start by having the NG do a door to door sweep of every inner city confiscating illegal guns and watch the murder rate (using a gun) collapse.
The inner city negroes will obviously find other ways to murder each other over a bag of weed or a pair of used Nikes.


----------



## dannyboys

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.  It will be, for lack of a better term, a convertible annuity.  I called it "insurance" because first and foremost, we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.  At the same time, to make it appetizing to the owners, you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets.
Click to expand...

You're living on Uranus pal.
Do you in your right mind believe increasing the price of a handgun would somehow have an effect on the people who are committing the most gun murders?
Do you think the negro young man who is about to shoot his cousin over a bag of weed gives a shit how much the original owner paid for the gun?
 You're a fool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...no.  That's why I'm asking you if you think that would also be an infringement.
> 
> Try to follow along.  I can't hold your hand all the time.  Plus, it's always clammy.
Click to expand...


*Uh...no. That's why I'm asking you if you think that would also be an infringement.
*
Since the Bill of Rights limits government, no, that's not an infringement.
*
Try to follow along.*

Bless your heart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice he hasn't introduced gun control legislation since he's been in office.
> And yes, based on Obama's whining, he has been hamstrung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice he passed Obama care right over the powerless GOP republicants. Ouch; sorry....too soon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't stop his whining.
> Even while Dems held huge majorities in both houses.
> He's got to be the weakest whiniest president.....ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So weak, the GOP is scared to face him.  Where are the bills to repeal Obamacare?  You've guys had the Congress for a year.....Obama has had to veto 0.00 bills.
> 
> You guys are pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Pussies who make him whine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that advances conservatism...how?
> 
> Oh, right - it gets demagogues with *zero* accomplishments, like Ted Cruz, reelected.
> 
> All the while, The Left keeps winning.
Click to expand...


*And that advances conservatism...how?
*
Well his whining did help the Dems lose both Houses of Congress.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down.
> *
> I already have my gun, why would the price go up?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my plan does one thing to affect firearms that have already been purchased unless they are used in a crime.   If you have 3 guns, 30 guns, 300 guns or 3,000 guns on hand and you're a private individual, you needn't purchase anything new except ammo when you run out.
> 
> Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The insurance is for the victim.*
> The victim gets $1000? Big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As stated, the device is not really an insurance policy; it acts more like a convertible annuity at this point.  If the gun is used in a crime, the system could be set up to where they would receive more since there is a State match going on.
> 
> The only thing they receive now is a bill for a funeral (likely on top of a medical bill).  So "big deal" is exactly that in some cases.
> 
> I love the callusness of the gun crazies; it highlights who has society's best interest at heart and who is just out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * It also makes the theft a gun crime in addition to the use of the weapon to shoot someone.
> *
> It's already against the law to steal a gun and shoot someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know that State crimes are ineffective due to paroles, probation, good behavior, etc...  Federal boys don't play that way.  Being 7 states away to where you see nobody from da hood for 10 years is probably a good thing. Now that will change as Fed pens fill up. You're likely to see someone from the old neighborhood.  But the old "all the comforts of home" bullshit has to stop.  I also think that once we stop incarcerating people for smoking tree and frankly "grow up" as a nation, you'll see more room in the prisons and more robust prosecutions of those who deserve it.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you ask someone with a State pension what their contributions are matched at.  Mine was 225% back at Harris County Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun owner is not an employee. The state is not going to match his "bond" based on a Federal law. Do you think a broke state, like Illinois, has an extra $9000 to cough up after 10 years? Or even a state with a balanced budget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a valid concern.  There are budgetary pressures that can't be ignored.  Smaller population states (those that do not have the same pension commitments) may have to carry the water for a while on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But if you wish to make the term longer--lets say 20 years or make the cap $7,500 or $5K in 10 that is still a 13% return if you did the math right--that's cool.*
> 
> Nope. A 13% return for 10 years only gets you to about $3400.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you brought up 26%; I didn't put pen to paper on it.
Click to expand...


*Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth.*

And what if we don't tell anyone he bought the gun?
*
As stated, the device is not really an insurance policy; it acts more like a convertible annuity at this point.* 

Yes, something else to drive our states bankrupt.

*So "big deal" is exactly that in some cases.
*
Yes, $1000 is a big help with huge medical bills. Or funerals. LOL!

*I love the callusness of the gun crazies
*
I love the idiocy of the lefties.

*Well, you brought up 26%; I didn't put pen to paper on it.*

Obviously. Lefties are horrible at math.


----------



## candycorn

dannyboys said:


> Do you in your right mind believe increasing the price of a handgun would somehow have an effect on the people who are committing the most gun murders?].



I removed the racist bullshit to respond to your idiocy without the cloud of your ignorance. 

Okay...your argument is increasing the price of an object will have no affect on it's availability.
Look out the window; Do you know why there are no Porsches or Ferarri's in sight?  Is it because there is no demand?  No, the price is too high to be afforded.  

Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down.
> *
> I already have my gun, why would the price go up?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my plan does one thing to affect firearms that have already been purchased unless they are used in a crime.   If you have 3 guns, 30 guns, 300 guns or 3,000 guns on hand and you're a private individual, you needn't purchase anything new except ammo when you run out.
> 
> Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The insurance is for the victim.*
> The victim gets $1000? Big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As stated, the device is not really an insurance policy; it acts more like a convertible annuity at this point.  If the gun is used in a crime, the system could be set up to where they would receive more since there is a State match going on.
> 
> The only thing they receive now is a bill for a funeral (likely on top of a medical bill).  So "big deal" is exactly that in some cases.
> 
> I love the callusness of the gun crazies; it highlights who has society's best interest at heart and who is just out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * It also makes the theft a gun crime in addition to the use of the weapon to shoot someone.
> *
> It's already against the law to steal a gun and shoot someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know that State crimes are ineffective due to paroles, probation, good behavior, etc...  Federal boys don't play that way.  Being 7 states away to where you see nobody from da hood for 10 years is probably a good thing. Now that will change as Fed pens fill up. You're likely to see someone from the old neighborhood.  But the old "all the comforts of home" bullshit has to stop.  I also think that once we stop incarcerating people for smoking tree and frankly "grow up" as a nation, you'll see more room in the prisons and more robust prosecutions of those who deserve it.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you ask someone with a State pension what their contributions are matched at.  Mine was 225% back at Harris County Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun owner is not an employee. The state is not going to match his "bond" based on a Federal law. Do you think a broke state, like Illinois, has an extra $9000 to cough up after 10 years? Or even a state with a balanced budget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a valid concern.  There are budgetary pressures that can't be ignored.  Smaller population states (those that do not have the same pension commitments) may have to carry the water for a while on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But if you wish to make the term longer--lets say 20 years or make the cap $7,500 or $5K in 10 that is still a 13% return if you did the math right--that's cool.*
> 
> Nope. A 13% return for 10 years only gets you to about $3400.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you brought up 26%; I didn't put pen to paper on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth.*
> 
> And what if we don't tell anyone he bought the gun?
Click to expand...

Gun crime.  Pack your bags.
*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			As stated, the device is not really an insurance policy; it acts more like a convertible annuity at this point.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, something else to drive our states bankrupt.


Chicken little has make an appearance.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So "big deal" is exactly that in some cases.*
> Yes, $1000 is a big help with huge medical bills. Or funerals. LOL!
> 
> *I love the callusness of the gun crazies*
> I love the idiocy of the lefties.


Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.  I guess "stuff happens" is enough to suffice.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Well, you brought up 26%; I didn't put pen to paper on it.*
> 
> Obviously. Lefties are horrible at math.



I used your figure of 26 percent.  I guess you're a lefty.


----------



## candycorn

You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Nothing in my plan does one thing to affect firearms that have already been purchased unless they are used in a crime.   If you have 3 guns, 30 guns, 300 guns or 3,000 guns on hand and you're a private individual, you needn't purchase anything new except ammo when you run out.
> 
> Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth.



Hmm.... So once again, a Leftist comes to inform us that tolerance of their cult, requires Americans Insure ourselves against the liabilities associated with the product of their unprincipled behavior?

At some point, it will become clear that the better solution is to simply stop tolerating their cult... remove their means to participate in US Government, strip them of all subsidy and shut them out of any means to communicate with the public at large and within fairly short order... the liabilities associated with the tolerating of the mental disorder that is Relativism, will just dry up and blow away.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down.
> *
> I already have my gun, why would the price go up?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my plan does one thing to affect firearms that have already been purchased unless they are used in a crime.   If you have 3 guns, 30 guns, 300 guns or 3,000 guns on hand and you're a private individual, you needn't purchase anything new except ammo when you run out.
> 
> Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The insurance is for the victim.*
> The victim gets $1000? Big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As stated, the device is not really an insurance policy; it acts more like a convertible annuity at this point.  If the gun is used in a crime, the system could be set up to where they would receive more since there is a State match going on.
> 
> The only thing they receive now is a bill for a funeral (likely on top of a medical bill).  So "big deal" is exactly that in some cases.
> 
> I love the callusness of the gun crazies; it highlights who has society's best interest at heart and who is just out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * It also makes the theft a gun crime in addition to the use of the weapon to shoot someone.
> *
> It's already against the law to steal a gun and shoot someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know that State crimes are ineffective due to paroles, probation, good behavior, etc...  Federal boys don't play that way.  Being 7 states away to where you see nobody from da hood for 10 years is probably a good thing. Now that will change as Fed pens fill up. You're likely to see someone from the old neighborhood.  But the old "all the comforts of home" bullshit has to stop.  I also think that once we stop incarcerating people for smoking tree and frankly "grow up" as a nation, you'll see more room in the prisons and more robust prosecutions of those who deserve it.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you ask someone with a State pension what their contributions are matched at.  Mine was 225% back at Harris County Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun owner is not an employee. The state is not going to match his "bond" based on a Federal law. Do you think a broke state, like Illinois, has an extra $9000 to cough up after 10 years? Or even a state with a balanced budget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a valid concern.  There are budgetary pressures that can't be ignored.  Smaller population states (those that do not have the same pension commitments) may have to carry the water for a while on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But if you wish to make the term longer--lets say 20 years or make the cap $7,500 or $5K in 10 that is still a 13% return if you did the math right--that's cool.*
> 
> Nope. A 13% return for 10 years only gets you to about $3400.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you brought up 26%; I didn't put pen to paper on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now if you wanted to sell the gun to someone, they would have to acquire an insurance policy and so on and so fourth.*
> 
> And what if we don't tell anyone he bought the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun crime.  Pack your bags.
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated, the device is not really an insurance policy; it acts more like a convertible annuity at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, something else to drive our states bankrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chicken little has make an appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So "big deal" is exactly that in some cases.*
> Yes, $1000 is a big help with huge medical bills. Or funerals. LOL!
> 
> *I love the callusness of the gun crazies*
> I love the idiocy of the lefties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.  I guess "stuff happens" is enough to suffice.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, you brought up 26%; I didn't put pen to paper on it.*
> 
> Obviously. Lefties are horrible at math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used your figure of 26 percent.  I guess you're a lefty.
Click to expand...


*Gun crime. Pack your bags.
*
What crime?

*Chicken little has make an appearance.
*
A million gun "annuities" will cost Illinois $9 billion in 10 years. We can't afford it. No thanks.

*Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.* 

Yes, your good intentions are the important thing, even if your policy makes things worse. 

*I used your figure of 26 percent.*


Yes, the return you'd need for 10 years to achieve your $10,000 result. It would never happen.
The fact that you think cutting the return to 13% for 10 years would give you $5,000, is
just more proof that liberals are really bad at math.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?



Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Gun crime. Pack your bags.*
> What crime?


Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Chicken little has make an appearance.*
> A million gun "annuities" will cost Illinois $9 billion in 10 years. We can't afford it. No thanks.


Your assumption will be that they are held for the full length.  Won't happen.  Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00. We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.*
> Yes, your good intentions are the important thing, even if your policy makes things worse.


The status quo is "good" in your book is it?  Let's hear your plan.


----------



## dannyboys

candycorn said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you in your right mind believe increasing the price of a handgun would somehow have an effect on the people who are committing the most gun murders?].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I removed the racist bullshit to respond to your idiocy without the cloud of your ignorance.
> 
> Okay...your argument is increasing the price of an object will have no affect on it's availability.
> Look out the window; Do you know why there are no Porsches or Ferarri's in sight?  Is it because there is no demand?  No, the price is too high to be afforded.
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
Click to expand...

That there IS funny pal!
When I look out MY window I do in fact see MY fucking Panamera sitting in MY driveway. I bought the driveway And the Panamera with my own money.
 Do you really believe the vast percentage of murders committed using a hand gun are going to go down because the person who bought the gun paid more for it so there will be less guns for young negro men to steal  and then murder their fucking cousin with it is somehow affected by what the the original owner paid for the gun?
You're an idiot.
You're totally missing the point. People with MONEY! buy guns. These people don't give a shit if the price has gone up 10%. I don't. Breaking News! These people are by percent of the population law abiding peaceful citizens who only wish to live in peace and safety. They are not feral Tree Dweller sub-humans.
People without MONEY steal the fucking guns. These people are coinsidently the very same people AKA young negro men who commit the vast % of gun related murders.
Or haven't you ever heard about a little place called Chicago?
Oh ya. It's spelled Ferrari genius not Ferarri.  
When 13% of the population stop committing over 50% of the violent crimes in the US you can refer to me as a 'racist'.
Until then you may refer to me as a 'realist'.
Enjoy your cat food sandwich.


----------



## candycorn

dannyboys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you in your right mind believe increasing the price of a handgun would somehow have an effect on the people who are committing the most gun murders?].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I removed the racist bullshit to respond to your idiocy without the cloud of your ignorance.
> 
> Okay...your argument is increasing the price of an object will have no affect on it's availability.
> Look out the window; Do you know why there are no Porsches or Ferarri's in sight?  Is it because there is no demand?  No, the price is too high to be afforded.
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That there IS funny pal!
> When I look out MY window I do in fact see MY fucking Panamera sitting in MY driveway. I bought the driveway And the Panamera with my own money.
Click to expand...

Of course you do.  Everyone on this board is an eccentric billionaire.  I see two of them outside of my window.  
Not much here worth responding to really.  Your ignorance is profound.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gun crime. Pack your bags.*
> What crime?
> 
> 
> 
> Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chicken little has make an appearance.*
> A million gun "annuities" will cost Illinois $9 billion in 10 years. We can't afford it. No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assumption will be that they are held for the full length.  Won't happen.  Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00. We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.*
> Yes, your good intentions are the important thing, even if your policy makes things worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status quo is "good" in your book is it?  Let's hear your plan.
Click to expand...


*Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.* 

Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
*
Your assumption will be that they are held for the full length.  Won't happen.* 

Doesn't matter, Illinois can't afford to pay 26% a year on an "annuity".
They can't even pay their current bills.

*Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.
*
Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
*
We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...*

Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
Your math is weak.

*The status quo is "good" in your book is it?* 

The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...no.  That's why I'm asking you if you think that would also be an infringement.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment applies to actions by the government, not the people, and so even if a price hike is an "infringement", the Constitution does not come into play.
You've been told this before; I do not know why you refuse to understamd


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it does.  Price goes up, sales go down.
> *
> I already have my gun, why would the price go up?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my plan does one thing to affect firearms that have already been purchased...
Click to expand...

And so will do nothing to reduce the numbers of mass shootings.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The insurance is mandated by law, thus the government, through the mandate, infringes on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? Well, by that strange argument, the government, through mandating you have hot water in the bathroom or a padlock on the Sudafed increases the business owner's costs and therefore drives up the price of guns and,therefore, infringes!!!!
Click to expand...

I see - you choose to not understand thee argument.
Sure sign that you know you cannot argue against it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the price of guns isn't using "market forces".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.
Click to expand...

This is an outright lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.


Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
Every time.


----------



## dannyboys

M14: "Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
Your math is weak."
'Candyass's math is "weak" b/c she has a ten year old's perception on a serious social problem ie how to prevent hundreds of young negro men from murdering other young negro men with the odd three year old victim thrown in.
She's our resident LIB crack pot.
Her idea is to have the government jack up the price of guns sales with the promise if the gun purchaser buys some sort of mumbo jumbo 'insurance plan the government will 'promise'
to pay what is basically a loan to the government a fantastic profit on their investment in TEN FUCKING YEARS!??????????????? so that the sales of guns will "dry up".
I've seen more sentient 'investment plans' in my Spam inbox from Nigeria for Christ's sake!
What a dummy!


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?


*
Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!


*
Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.



Toddsterpatriot said:



			We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?


The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.  

Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.



I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
Click to expand...


Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
The intent is to limit the monthly blood baths.  It will do that over time.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
Click to expand...


No, I stated a free market truth.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
Click to expand...

Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
Every time.
.


----------



## dannyboys

candycorn said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them.
> 
> The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.
Click to expand...




candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> 
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
Click to expand...

Would you like to go the 'sun room' now?
 How would you stop the daily blood-bath in every fucking inner city shit hole in the country?
Anyone with a hundred bucks can buy an illegal gun in any inner city shit hole in the country.
Come on genius. Let's hear your wisdom. Specifics please. Not your usual bumbo jumbo bullshit. 
Your man BOBO is waiting also. He's never even bothered trying to stop the blood baths.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
Click to expand...

For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.  

You can't.
You won't

Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).  

I win.  As always.


----------



## candycorn

dannyboys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them.
> 
> The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like to go the 'sun room' now?
> How would you stop the daily blood-bath in every fucking inner city shit hole in the country?
> Anyone with a hundred bucks can buy an illegal gun in any inner city shit hole in the country.
> Come on genius. Let's hear your wisdom. Specifics please. Not your usual bumbo jumbo bullshit.
> Your man BOBO is waiting also. He's never even bothered trying to stop the blood baths.
Click to expand...


Speaking of gun crazy....lol


----------



## dannyboys

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> The intent is to limit the monthly blood baths.  It will do that over time.
Click to expand...

Have a look 'Cornhole'. Every fucking one of these victims were murdered by another negro. Every fucking gun used was illegal.
2015 Chicago Murders - Timeline
BOBO's obvious disinterest in his 'bros' is obvious.
And you think the way to stop negro on negro murder is to "dry up" the number of guns bought legally by adding some sort of bullshit tax on each purchase.
You really are a dummy.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.


Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
Thus, you lose.


----------



## dannyboys

candycorn said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them.
> 
> The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like to go the 'sun room' now?
> How would you stop the daily blood-bath in every fucking inner city shit hole in the country?
> Anyone with a hundred bucks can buy an illegal gun in any inner city shit hole in the country.
> Come on genius. Let's hear your wisdom. Specifics please. Not your usual bumbo jumbo bullshit.
> Your man BOBO is waiting also. He's never even bothered trying to stop the blood baths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of gun crazy....lol
Click to expand...

That's it jerk-off? A one-liner?
Permanent Ignore.
You're a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual



His political ideology is irrelevant unless there's a Satan's Cabin Republicans I've never heard of who advocate slaughtering Christians.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.


----------



## candycorn

dannyboys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> 
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them.
> 
> The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like to go the 'sun room' now?
> How would you stop the daily blood-bath in every fucking inner city shit hole in the country?
> Anyone with a hundred bucks can buy an illegal gun in any inner city shit hole in the country.
> Come on genius. Let's hear your wisdom. Specifics please. Not your usual bumbo jumbo bullshit.
> Your man BOBO is waiting also. He's never even bothered trying to stop the blood baths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of gun crazy....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's it jerk-off? A one-liner?
> Permanent Ignore.
> You're a waste of bandwidth.
Click to expand...


Gee, I'll have to live without your "wisdom". Woe is me.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
Click to expand...

Allow me to provide a citation.
Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The right to arms, specifically"...shall not infringed".
Thus, you lose.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allow me to provide a citation.
Click to expand...

Feel free....show us where the Constitution mentions price.  To give you an example of what a citation looks like, I'll cite myself.
_*
"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

Now get busy little man.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allow me to provide a citation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free....show us where the Constitution mentions price.
Click to expand...

I provided a citation as the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allow me to provide a citation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free....show us where the Constitution mentions price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided a citation as the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong.
Click to expand...


Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case.  Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote.  Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing.  


Put up or shut up little man.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allow me to provide a citation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free....show us where the Constitution mentions price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided a citation as the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong


----------



## JFK_USA

bear513 said:


> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> 
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....



Because Republicans never do that. If there is any link to a gunman for a "liberal" point of view. 

Fox News and the rest of the conservative media will blame democrats and liberals for the shooting. You don't get to pull that shit anymore and scream uncle when its your guy. We won't allow it anymore.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to provide a citation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free....show us where the Constitution mentions price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided a citation as the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
Click to expand...


Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================
Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

_*"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."*_
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. 


Put up or shut up little man.

----------------

You did no such thing; otherwise you'd do it again.  You simply choose to be a liar.  C'mon little man; you can admit that the Constitution says nothing about pricing and, thus, there is no "infringement" argument to be made via pricing when there is already a price being charged.

I'm sure you'll post something you already posted yet again that was proven wrong already ten times.  So to save us some time, I'll cut and paste your argument and my superior retort 10 times.  Its just a way to save time.

I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong

=====================================================================================


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to provide a citation.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free....show us where the Constitution mentions price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided a citation as the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
Click to expand...


This is a lie.
I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free....show us where the Constitution mentions price.
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a citation as the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
Click to expand...


See, told ya.  

*Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing. *


----------



## M14 Shooter

JFK_USA said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea...
> Instead of playing the name games...
> Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
> 
> 
> 
> Because Republicans never do that. If there is any link to a gunman for a "liberal" point of view.
> Fox News and the rest of the conservative media will blame democrats and liberals for the shooting. You don't get to pull that shit anymore and scream uncle when its your guy. We won't allow it anymore.
Click to expand...

Funny...  I don't see anyone doing that.  can you cite an example?
I -do- see anti-gun loons using this terrible event as an excuse to enact more mindless and unnecessary restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a citation as the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *
Click to expand...


This is a lie.
I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
Click to expand...

See, told ya. 

*Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> *
Click to expand...


This is a lie.
I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
Click to expand...

See, told ya. 

*Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing.*
*
Get busy little man.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *


This is a lie.
I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
> You simply choose to be wrong
Click to expand...


See, told ya. 

*Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing.*
*
For the 2nd one:

See, told ya. 

Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. 

I'm sure you could do it again if that were the case. Again, here is what a citation looks like little man:

"For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing."
Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

See, that up there...that is a quote. Now go quote me the part of the CONSTITUTION that says anything about gun pricing.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> *Ahh, that game....claiming you did something you've never done. *


This is a lie.
I provided a citation to the relevant text of the Constitution and explained how your idea violates that text.
You simply choose to be wrong


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

dannyboys said:


> M14: "Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
> Your math is weak."
> 'Candyass's math is "weak" b/c she has a ten year old's perception on a serious social problem ie how to prevent hundreds of young negro men from murdering other young negro men with the odd three year old victim thrown in.
> She's our resident LIB crack pot.
> Her idea is to have the government jack up the price of guns sales with the promise if the gun purchaser buys some sort of mumbo jumbo 'insurance plan the government will 'promise'
> to pay what is basically a loan to the government a fantastic profit on their investment in TEN FUCKING YEARS!??????????????? so that the sales of guns will "dry up".
> I've seen more sentient 'investment plans' in my Spam inbox from Nigeria for Christ's sake!
> What a dummy!



No kidding. I'd buy a 100 guns for a 26% annual return.
I could retire and the state would be unable to pay promised pensions to state retirees. Bonus!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> 
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
Click to expand...


*Good point. It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *

Not to mention the lack of real world knowledge of the liberal idiots.

*Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.
*
That is an excellent idea! Instead of using forfeited pension benefits to actually pay pensions, you can pay them to gun owners like me. 26% a year, yeah baby!!! I'm gonna buy more guns with all the money I make!

*It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
*
You're not familiar with Illinois.

*What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream
*
No, what the state is getting is a loan at 26%. Idiotic!

*I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.* 

I see continued blood baths and an idiotic expense for the states.
But at least you'll feel better because of your idiotic, failed suggestion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> You can't.
> You won't
> 
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).
> 
> I win.  As always.
Click to expand...


*Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).* 

I'm really excited about my idea for a $500 voting license, renewable every 2 years.
We could use the money for infrastructure.
Nothing in the Constitution about making voting more expensive, so I'm sure it'll be okay.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> You can't.
> You won't
> 
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).
> 
> I win.  As always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).*
> 
> I'm really excited about my idea for a $500 voting license, renewable every 2 years.
> We could use the money for infrastructure.
> Nothing in the Constitution about making voting more expensive, so I'm sure it'll be okay.
Click to expand...

Abortion.
Don't forget $1500 permits for abortions.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14: "Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
> Your math is weak."
> 'Candyass's math is "weak" b/c she has a ten year old's perception on a serious social problem ie how to prevent hundreds of young negro men from murdering other young negro men with the odd three year old victim thrown in.
> She's our resident LIB crack pot.
> Her idea is to have the government jack up the price of guns sales with the promise if the gun purchaser buys some sort of mumbo jumbo 'insurance plan the government will 'promise'
> to pay what is basically a loan to the government a fantastic profit on their investment in TEN FUCKING YEARS!??????????????? so that the sales of guns will "dry up".
> I've seen more sentient 'investment plans' in my Spam inbox from Nigeria for Christ's sake!
> What a dummy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. I'd buy a 100 guns for a 26% annual return.
> I could retire and the state would be unable to pay promised pensions to state retirees. Bonus!!!
Click to expand...


100 x 10,000= 1,000,000 .  Yeah, the state would have a huge problem paying you.  LOL. Mean while you're going to spend 100,000 plus on guns?    Gun crazies and their money are soon parted.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> 
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good point. It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups. *
> Not to mention the lack of real world knowledge of the liberal idiots.
Click to expand...

Everything pointed out in the plan is based on real world scenarios.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.*
> That is an excellent idea! Instead of using forfeited pension benefits to actually pay pensions, you can pay them to gun owners like me. 26% a year, yeah baby!!! I'm gonna buy more guns with all the money I make!


Not sure what you mean by that but obviously you're in favor of the monthly blood baths...that much is clear.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.*
> 
> I see continued blood baths and an idiotic expense for the states.
> But at least you'll feel better because of your idiotic, failed suggestion.



I'll feel better when, at the very least, those responsible pay for the carnage; when the blood baths stop as they will when cheap guns are no longer available, and criminals are serving their full terms in jail.  Yup!

OF course, your suggestion was................oh yeah; you like the status quo of dead young people.  Carry on.


----------



## TooTall

Esmeralda said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Conservatives targeting Christians for execution yeah that's a new the guys probably related to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  So, despite the fact he self identifies as a conservative, you say he's not. Guess you would know as you never met him or set eyes on him in your life. Is it not possible for someone to be a conservative but to dislike organized religion?  He disliked organized religion: that's on the profile, which would mean, to him, he disliked Christians. Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS possible for someone to be a conservative and to dislike organized religion, thus disliking Christians. He self identifies as a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. You cannot arbitrarily say he isn't just because you don't like the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is that it's a fake; why would anyone want to fake a mass murderer's profile?? Sounds something that a liberal minded progressive would do.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word is 'it's a fake' because conservatives want it to be a fake. Most likely it is not a fake at all, but you all want it to be, so will spread the falsity that  it is.  Sad, very sad.
Click to expand...


I know this is hard to believe, but I am really a Brad Pitt lookalike and am worth over $300 million dollars.  After all, you can be anything you want to be on the internet and some fools even believe it.  LMFAO


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Esmeralda said:


> The word is 'it's a fake' because conservatives want it to be a fake. Most likely it is not a fake at all, but you all want it to be, so will spread the falsity that  it is.  Sad, very sad.



First, 'It's a fake', is a sentence, not a word.  

Second, it's a fake, because Conservatives, which is to say Americans, OKA: Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that govern human behavior; therefore, they do not murder innocent people, particularly people like them... which is to say other people who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the Laws of God; AKA: Christians.

There's nothing even remotely complex about that... and there's nothing remotely debatable about it, yet there you are befuddled by the whole thing, trying to debate it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14: "Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
> Your math is weak."
> 'Candyass's math is "weak" b/c she has a ten year old's perception on a serious social problem ie how to prevent hundreds of young negro men from murdering other young negro men with the odd three year old victim thrown in.
> She's our resident LIB crack pot.
> Her idea is to have the government jack up the price of guns sales with the promise if the gun purchaser buys some sort of mumbo jumbo 'insurance plan the government will 'promise'
> to pay what is basically a loan to the government a fantastic profit on their investment in TEN FUCKING YEARS!??????????????? so that the sales of guns will "dry up".
> I've seen more sentient 'investment plans' in my Spam inbox from Nigeria for Christ's sake!
> What a dummy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. I'd buy a 100 guns for a 26% annual return.
> I could retire and the state would be unable to pay promised pensions to state retirees. Bonus!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 x 10,000= 1,000,000 .  Yeah, the state would have a huge problem paying you.  LOL. Mean while you're going to spend 100,000 plus on guns?    Gun crazies and their money are soon parted.
Click to expand...

*
Yeah, the state would have a huge problem paying you. LOL
*
They'd have no problem paying one guy $1,000,000?
I'll bet some hedge funds would be glad to jump onto your gravy train.
Gun sales will skyrocket!

*Mean while you're going to spend 100,000 plus on guns?*

For your idiotic return, I'd take out a home equity loan, tomorrow.
I love it, finance my guns with a tax deductible loan!

*Gun crazies and their money are soon parted.
*
Are you kidding? Thanks to your idiotic plan, we'll all be rich!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> 
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good point. It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups. *
> Not to mention the lack of real world knowledge of the liberal idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything pointed out in the plan is based on real world scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.*
> That is an excellent idea! Instead of using forfeited pension benefits to actually pay pensions, you can pay them to gun owners like me. 26% a year, yeah baby!!! I'm gonna buy more guns with all the money I make!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that but obviously you're in favor of the monthly blood baths...that much is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.*
> 
> I see continued blood baths and an idiotic expense for the states.
> But at least you'll feel better because of your idiotic, failed suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll feel better when, at the very least, those responsible pay for the carnage; when the blood baths stop as they will when cheap guns are no longer available, and criminals are serving their full terms in jail.  Yup!
> 
> OF course, your suggestion was................oh yeah; you like the status quo of dead young people.  Carry on.
Click to expand...

*
Everything pointed out in the plan is based on real world scenarios.* 

And in the real world, it would fail. Miserably.
*
Not sure what you mean by that
*
It means you don't understand state finances or underfunded liabilities. 
*
I'll feel better when, at the very least, those responsible pay for the carnage*

Don't hold your breath. The guys like me will make all the money, the gang bangers with stolen, uninsured guns will continue to spill the blood.
*
OF course, your suggestion was................*

Liberal idiocy, it never works.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14: "Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
> Your math is weak."
> 'Candyass's math is "weak" b/c she has a ten year old's perception on a serious social problem ie how to prevent hundreds of young negro men from murdering other young negro men with the odd three year old victim thrown in.
> She's our resident LIB crack pot.
> Her idea is to have the government jack up the price of guns sales with the promise if the gun purchaser buys some sort of mumbo jumbo 'insurance plan the government will 'promise'
> to pay what is basically a loan to the government a fantastic profit on their investment in TEN FUCKING YEARS!??????????????? so that the sales of guns will "dry up".
> I've seen more sentient 'investment plans' in my Spam inbox from Nigeria for Christ's sake!
> What a dummy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. I'd buy a 100 guns for a 26% annual return.
> I could retire and the state would be unable to pay promised pensions to state retirees. Bonus!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 x 10,000= 1,000,000 .  Yeah, the state would have a huge problem paying you.  LOL. Mean while you're going to spend 100,000 plus on guns?    Gun crazies and their money are soon parted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yeah, the state would have a huge problem paying you. LOL
> *
> They'd have no problem paying one guy $1,000,000?
> I'll bet some hedge funds would be glad to jump onto your gravy train.
> Gun sales will skyrocket!
Click to expand...

Two things:

Actually gun sales would plumment.  When the price goes up, sales go down.  People would still have to pay for them and straw purchases would still be illegal. The owner couldn't be a corporation.  

Governments would be raking in so much money it would probably make Wall Street investment houses a bit nervous knowing they now have some competition for John Q. Public's investment dollars.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Mean while you're going to spend 100,000 plus on guns?*
> For your idiotic return, I'd take out a home equity loan, tomorrow.
> I love it, finance my guns with a tax deductible loan!


Well, there is no "loan" and as soon as you get your $10,000, you probably would get a 1099 right after it.  Not sure where you got that it was tax free.  But That would be great; if such could be rolled over into an IRA or 401-k plan.....

Thanks for bringing it up.  I'm putting together the plan formally right now and will be submitting it to my congress critter and the White House by year's end.  Making it a tax-free rollover into an IRA....suh-weet.  

Nice job.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Gun crazies and their money are soon parted.*
> Are you kidding? Thanks to your idiotic plan, we'll all be rich!



Well, it is designed to be a win-win-win. For society, victims of the NRA mayhem, and gun owners themselves who largely decry the NRA's stance on gun violence.  

You will not get rich off of it.  But then again, $10,000 to someone like you is probably a $1M to someone like me. Knock yourself out.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> 
> 
> 
> *Good point.  It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.*
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.  When they are not, they get a lump-sum payment (often times) for several thousand dollars.  It's not as if the State is not equipped for the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The $1,000 per gun sales is a given.  The $10,000 is going to be a % of the persons who purchased.  I answered that already.  What you're getting if you're the state is another revenue stream.  What you're getting, if you're the public, is some assurance that if you're the victim of a gun crime, you'll get some compensation.  What you're getting if you're the gun owner is an investment vehicle that will pay off a much higher return than most other investments.
> 
> Are there details to be worked out?  Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.  Typical gun crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good point. It highlights the inherent dishonesty involved in the guns rights groups. *
> Not to mention the lack of real world knowledge of the liberal idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything pointed out in the plan is based on real world scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most states can.  Every day people resign from State jobs.  Some are vested, some are not.*
> That is an excellent idea! Instead of using forfeited pension benefits to actually pay pensions, you can pay them to gun owners like me. 26% a year, yeah baby!!! I'm gonna buy more guns with all the money I make!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that but obviously you're in favor of the monthly blood baths...that much is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I see you prefer the monthly blood bath.*
> 
> I see continued blood baths and an idiotic expense for the states.
> But at least you'll feel better because of your idiotic, failed suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll feel better when, at the very least, those responsible pay for the carnage; when the blood baths stop as they will when cheap guns are no longer available, and criminals are serving their full terms in jail.  Yup!
> 
> OF course, your suggestion was................oh yeah; you like the status quo of dead young people.  Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Everything pointed out in the plan is based on real world scenarios.*
> 
> And in the real world, it would fail. Miserably.
Click to expand...

Market forces are tried and true.  Success.
State pension funds are matched at very high rates.  Success.
Locking up criminals for gun crimes for the full length of their sentence reduces violent crime.  Success. 

I'll let you take the opposition to this.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I'll feel better when, at the very least, those responsible pay for the carnage*
> Don't hold your breath. The guys like me will make all the money, the gang bangers with stolen, uninsured guns will continue to spill the blood.


*
And with each successful persecution, each confiscated weapon, the supply of "bangers" and weapons dries up a bit more.  "Guys like me" won't be selling them at gun shows so that dries up the supply."Guys like me" won't be buying as many so manufacturers won't be making as many.  So that dries up the supply too.  

Market forces.  



Toddsterpatriot said:



			OF course, your suggestion was................
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liberal idiocy, it never works.



Oh yeah, you have no plan.  You're happy with the status quo; as long as it isn't anyone you know and love.  Typical conservative....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14: "Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
> Your math is weak."
> 'Candyass's math is "weak" b/c she has a ten year old's perception on a serious social problem ie how to prevent hundreds of young negro men from murdering other young negro men with the odd three year old victim thrown in.
> She's our resident LIB crack pot.
> Her idea is to have the government jack up the price of guns sales with the promise if the gun purchaser buys some sort of mumbo jumbo 'insurance plan the government will 'promise'
> to pay what is basically a loan to the government a fantastic profit on their investment in TEN FUCKING YEARS!??????????????? so that the sales of guns will "dry up".
> I've seen more sentient 'investment plans' in my Spam inbox from Nigeria for Christ's sake!
> What a dummy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. I'd buy a 100 guns for a 26% annual return.
> I could retire and the state would be unable to pay promised pensions to state retirees. Bonus!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 x 10,000= 1,000,000 .  Yeah, the state would have a huge problem paying you.  LOL. Mean while you're going to spend 100,000 plus on guns?    Gun crazies and their money are soon parted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yeah, the state would have a huge problem paying you. LOL
> *
> They'd have no problem paying one guy $1,000,000?
> I'll bet some hedge funds would be glad to jump onto your gravy train.
> Gun sales will skyrocket!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Actually gun sales would plumment.  When the price goes up, sales go down.  People would still have to pay for them and straw purchases would still be illegal. The owner couldn't be a corporation.
> 
> Governments would be raking in so much money it would probably make Wall Street investment houses a bit nervous knowing they now have some competition for John Q. Public's investment dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mean while you're going to spend 100,000 plus on guns?*
> For your idiotic return, I'd take out a home equity loan, tomorrow.
> I love it, finance my guns with a tax deductible loan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there is no "loan" and as soon as you get your $10,000, you probably would get a 1099 right after it.  Not sure where you got that it was tax free.  But That would be great; if such could be rolled over into an IRA or 401-k plan.....
> 
> Thanks for bringing it up.  I'm putting together the plan formally right now and will be submitting it to my congress critter and the White House by year's end.  Making it a tax-free rollover into an IRA....suh-weet.
> 
> Nice job.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gun crazies and their money are soon parted.*
> Are you kidding? Thanks to your idiotic plan, we'll all be rich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it is designed to be a win-win-win. For society, victims of the NRA mayhem, and gun owners themselves who largely decry the NRA's stance on gun violence.
> 
> You will not get rich off of it.  But then again, $10,000 to someone like you is probably a $1M to someone like me. Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...



*Actually gun sales would plumment. When the price goes up, sales go down.
*
If I could buy a bond yielding 26% and all I had to do was buy a gun to go with it, I'd borrow as much money as I could and buy as many guns as I could. I even know how I could do it without buying a single gun.

*The* *owner couldn't be a corporation*

Why not? You're going to defend a corporate exemption? I wonder if a gang would incorporate?  LOL!
*
Governments would be raking in so much money it would probably make Wall Street investment houses a bit nervous knowing they now have some competition for John Q. Public's investment dollars.*

Yes, Wall Street gets nervous when government pays 26% to borrow money.
Because Wall Street can do it for less than 1%.

*Well, there is no "loan" and as soon as you get your $10,000, you probably would get a 1099 right after it.*

My home equity loan isn't a loan? What is it?

*Not sure where you got that it was tax free.* 

My home equity loan is tax deductible.

*Well, it is designed to be a win-win-win. For society, victims of the NRA mayhem, and gun owners themselves who largely decry the NRA's stance on gun violence.
*
What is the NRA's stance on gun violence? Link?

*You will not get rich off of it.* 

Are you kidding? $10,000 profit per gun. Times 100 guns, at least.

*But then again, $10,000 to someone like you is probably a $1M to someone like me.
*
Yeah, based upon your ignorance of taxes, compound interest, basic math...you're a rich mogul. LOL!


----------



## dannyboys

My neighbor's six year old granddaughter has an idea. 
"Instead of the badmen pointing guns at people and stealing things why not just give the badmen what they want. Then they don't need to point a gun at people. So they won't need a gun". 
Sounds eerily like something 'BOBO The Bonobo' would suggest to deal with, let's see, inner city daily negro on negro murder, Putin, the Mullahs, the illegal immigration invasion. Did I miss anything?
Her idea sounds as dumb as some LIBs idea's on this forum.
"Raise the price of a gun to 10K and the demand will dry up".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

dannyboys said:


> My neighbor's six year old granddaughter has an idea.
> "Instead of the badmen pointing guns at people and stealing things why not just give the badmen what they want. Then they don't need to point a gun at people. So they won't need a gun".
> Sounds eerily like something 'BOBO The Bonobo' would suggest to deal with, let's see, inner city daily negro on negro murder, Putin, the Mullahs, the illegal immigration invasion. Did I miss anything?
> Her idea sounds as dumb as some LIBs idea's on this forum.
> "Raise the price of a gun to 10K and the demand will dry up".



*Raise the price of a gun to 10K
*
Her idiocy only requires a $1000 hike.
Because states have all this extra money sitting around. LOL!


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually gun sales would plumment. When the price goes up, sales go down.*
> If I could buy a bond yielding 26% and all I had to do was buy a gun to go with it, I'd borrow as much money as I could and buy as many guns as I could. I even know how I could do it without buying a single gun.
> 
> 
> 
> Borrow=loan=interest.  You'll be paying back interest on the loans long before the 10 year period even gets close.  But borrow away; sooner or later math teaches you a lesson.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, there is no "loan" and as soon as you get your $10,000, you probably would get a 1099 right after it.*
> My home equity loan isn't a loan? What is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure.  We were talking about insurance and guns.  You have apparently started a conversation with yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure where you got that it was tax free.*
> My home equity loan is tax deductible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. But back on the subject...the payment you take for the "maturation" of the insurance policy is not.  But thanks for the idea of making them tax free by allowing them to roll-over into a retirement vehicle.
> 
> The plan gets better every day.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it is designed to be a win-win-win. For society, victims of the NRA mayhem, and gun owners themselves who largely decry the NRA's stance on gun violence.*
> What is the NRA's stance on gun violence? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To publicly condemn it but privately encourage it.  That is my assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But then again, $10,000 to someone like you is probably a $1M to someone like me.
> *
> Yeah, based upon your ignorance of taxes, compound interest, basic math...you're a rich mogul. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, far from it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
Click to expand...

It's not ours to win or lose.

You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.

What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually gun sales would plumment. When the price goes up, sales go down.*
> If I could buy a bond yielding 26% and all I had to do was buy a gun to go with it, I'd borrow as much money as I could and buy as many guns as I could. I even know how I could do it without buying a single gun.
> 
> 
> 
> Borrow=loan=interest.  You'll be paying back interest on the loans long before the 10 year period even gets close.  But borrow away; sooner or later math teaches you a lesson.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, there is no "loan" and as soon as you get your $10,000, you probably would get a 1099 right after it.*
> My home equity loan isn't a loan? What is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure.  We were talking about insurance and guns.  You have apparently started a conversation with yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure where you got that it was tax free.*
> My home equity loan is tax deductible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. But back on the subject...the payment you take for the "maturation" of the insurance policy is not.  But thanks for the idea of making them tax free by allowing them to roll-over into a retirement vehicle.
> 
> The plan gets better every day.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it is designed to be a win-win-win. For society, victims of the NRA mayhem, and gun owners themselves who largely decry the NRA's stance on gun violence.*
> What is the NRA's stance on gun violence? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To publicly condemn it but privately encourage it.  That is my assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But then again, $10,000 to someone like you is probably a $1M to someone like me.
> *
> Yeah, based upon your ignorance of taxes, compound interest, basic math...you're a rich mogul. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, far from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*
Borrow=loan=interest. You'll be paying back interest on the loans long before the 10 year period even gets close. But borrow away; sooner or later math teaches you a lesson.*

Yes, I'd pay a bit over 4%, deduct the interest I pay, and earn 26% a year.

*Not sure.  We were talking about insurance and guns.* 

And then I explained how I could use leverage to increase my profit.
Then you showed you either couldn't read or didn't know what a home equity loan was.
*
 But back on the subject...the payment you take for the "maturation" of the insurance policy is not.
*
Why would my earnings be tax deductible? You're showing your ignorance again.

*To publicly condemn it but privately encourage it.  That is my assessment.
*
LOL! We've seen what your assessments are worth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
Click to expand...


*It's not ours to win or lose.
*
That will make Obama's failure more palatable.

*What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
*
Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.


----------



## dannyboys

A thousand dollar hike means the negro thug who stole the fucking gun will use a $1500 gun to murder his cousin for the pair of used Nikes.
Sweet.


----------



## jc456

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough time to go back and look at it.  I'll take your word for it.
> I apologize.  Outside of total confiscation, nothing will get rid of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Short of getting rid of all guns, nothing will prevent mass shootings.
> 
> 1 gun out of every 36500 is involved in a murder; how does the misuse of that one gun justify the draconian infringements you propose for the 36500 others?
Click to expand...

most likely like 13 % of americans didn't have health insurance and the entire health program was changed.  It is how liberals think.  They have no logical thinking skills.  Instead of fixing the 13% that didn't have insurance, Which technically isn't correct, but that is way too long of discussion to take on, but they revamped everything.  WOW!  I tell you, the libs certainly are nothing if not all about them and their point of view.  F off to everyone who doesn't believe as them.  I do have a finger for them and available for any discussion on it in person.


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax?  Never said I wanted to tax guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idea was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns?  Why'd you change your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.
Click to expand...

what insurance policy?  Oh, you meant the tax.  That thingy you didn't actually said but did!!!!!  funny stuff dude.


----------



## Katzndogz

The Oregon gunman is so black.....

How black is he?

He is so black, CNN photoshopped him white.


----------



## dannyboys

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
Click to expand...

Putin's 150K army headed into Syria will once and for all deal with the rag head terrorists.
Too bad the Dear Leader likes to "lead from his ass" (behind). VJ keeps coming to mind for some reason.


----------



## Liminal

Synthaholic said:


> I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.


I had no idea political affiliation was one of the criteria used when investigating a mass a murder


----------



## jc456

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.
> *
> So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
Click to expand...

but I doubt the manufacture wants to put themselves out of business. I'm just saying.


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices.  The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.  This is why it is important to elect HRC.  You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.
> 
> Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an  existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing.  And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
> And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
> BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
> But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
> There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
> BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Clinton will win the nomination easily.  General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Hillary 'cloud' server has just been uncovered. Let's wait and see what the FBI finds on it before we 'anoint' Hillary shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a line in the movie, _The Right Stuff.  _It was a favorite in my house growing up and I remember my cousins coming over and watching it all the time in our old Sears VHS.  Anyway, the scene is in this bar and the Chuck Yeager had just broken the sound barrier.  Then another guy broke his record by a few mph.  Then Yeager broke his record.  Then the other guy re-gained the title of "fastest man alive"....  When Yeager broke the record, the press was fanatical.  Now the air force base was empty and nobody was covering them.
> 
> The "Liaison Man" pointed out to the pilots that the reason the press coverage had waned wasn't that their feats were not great but that for something to capture the public imagination; it needed to be a simple message; he cited the four minute mile, sixty homers; in short, a nice round number.  This is the issue with Hillary's e-mails and the obsession the GOP has with it.  The public isn't going to care unless she is frog-marched into a court-house.  She should be ashamed for going the route of convenience and the ham-handed way she sees enemies behind every bush and looks to defend against foes who have zero real ammo.  But the public isn't going to care unless there is a skin on the wall.  The GOP didn't get there with Whitewater, "file gate", Ben-Gotcha, and it looks like the e-mail server is going to be a dud also.
Click to expand...

funny, you forgot to post your favorite line!!! dude too funny.  'This one day at band camp!!!!!'


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.  It will be, for lack of a better term, a convertible annuity.  I called it "insurance" because first and foremost, we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.  At the same time, to make it appetizing to the owners, you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets.
Click to expand...

so how does getting rid of guns solve violence?  explain that to me.


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you in your right mind believe increasing the price of a handgun would somehow have an effect on the people who are committing the most gun murders?].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I removed the racist bullshit to respond to your idiocy without the cloud of your ignorance.
> 
> Okay...your argument is increasing the price of an object will have no affect on it's availability.
> Look out the window; Do you know why there are no Porsches or Ferarri's in sight?  Is it because there is no demand?  No, the price is too high to be afforded.
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
Click to expand...

so what happens when those cars are stolen off the street?  dude, you're not making any sense here.  you've been ranting quite a long time on here and it is all falling on deaf ears.  you're losing terribly, you should find another line of work.  The libs lost their money on you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> 
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?*
> 
> Is the manufacturer the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the seller of the insurance I proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a private firm to sell insurance for $1000 and buy it back in 10 years for $10,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several mechanisms could be employed.  I'm for using market forces to dry up the gun supply and reduce the violence.  It will be, for lack of a better term, a convertible annuity.  I called it "insurance" because first and foremost, we have to do something to compensate the victims of gun crimes.  At the same time, to make it appetizing to the owners, you allow them to invest in the lucrative State Pension funds which have billions of dollars in assets.
Click to expand...



See: Amendment 2


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gun crime. Pack your bags.*
> What crime?
> 
> 
> 
> Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chicken little has make an appearance.*
> A million gun "annuities" will cost Illinois $9 billion in 10 years. We can't afford it. No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assumption will be that they are held for the full length.  Won't happen.  Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00. We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.*
> Yes, your good intentions are the important thing, even if your policy makes things worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status quo is "good" in your book is it?  Let's hear your plan.
Click to expand...

wow still losing the battle.  Retreat should be a word you're used to hearing.  it's time.  the insurance thingy is done.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> The 2nd Amendment is patently outdated but totally unassailable.  So we have to live with it and any remedy to the violence is spawns will have to be attractive.



The second amendment is a principle.  Principles are immutable .


----------



## jc456

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gun crime. Pack your bags.*
> What crime?
> 
> 
> 
> Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chicken little has make an appearance.*
> A million gun "annuities" will cost Illinois $9 billion in 10 years. We can't afford it. No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assumption will be that they are held for the full length.  Won't happen.  Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00. We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.*
> Yes, your good intentions are the important thing, even if your policy makes things worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status quo is "good" in your book is it?  Let's hear your plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.*
> 
> Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?
> *
> Your assumption will be that they are held for the full length.  Won't happen.*
> 
> Doesn't matter, Illinois can't afford to pay 26% a year on an "annuity".
> They can't even pay their current bills.
> 
> *Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00.
> *
> Your assumption was the state can magically "match" the cost. LOL!
> *
> We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...*
> 
> Oh, they'll use the $1000 to build a road or a hospital and when I come back for the $10,000?
> Or they'll pay off an 8% debt to incur a 26% debt? LOL!
> Your math is weak.
> 
> *The status quo is "good" in your book is it?*
> 
> The status quo is better than your "annuity" idea.
Click to expand...


*Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.

Nobody knows I have a gun, how will they know I sold it?*

The dude has magic fairy dust and will sprinkle it and find out everyone's gun.


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> The intent is to limit the monthly blood baths.  It will do that over time.
Click to expand...

how?  How does a more expensive gun change violent behavior?


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand how this has anything to do with the OP.


----------



## dannyboys

jc456 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> The intent is to limit the monthly blood baths.  It will do that over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how?  How does a more expensive gun change violent behavior?
Click to expand...

The hilarious irony is if the ludicrous 'Gun Tax' of say $1000 was imposed in some sort of ludicrous attempt to "dry up" gun sales the fucking negro thugs who steal 99.999% of the guns would be out there looking to see who could steal the most expensive guns.
Think about it!
"Ya well I murdered my cousin for his Nikes with my stolen gun which cost way more then the stolen gun you used to murder your cousin for a fucking bag of weed. This makes me more of a man then you are bro".
And this my friends is seriously the sort of mentality the 'bonobos' who commit these murders possess.
These Tree Dwellers NEVER steal an old Chevy station wagon. It's beneath their dignity!
They only steal vehicles like new Escalades. That gives them 'street cred. with their 'baby mammas'.


----------



## suplex3000

Conservative Americans can't do anything about the rise of the Black Lion.


----------



## candycorn

jc456 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right. Every time.
> The right to arms, specifically, shall not infringed.
> Thus, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the quote from the Constitution that supports your jibberish.  Now get busy and provide the quote little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I still don't understand how this has anything to do with the OP.
Click to expand...


I fail to see how your post relates as well


----------



## candycorn

jc456 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive the price up and you dry the pool out.
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> The intent is to limit the monthly blood baths.  It will do that over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how?  How does a more expensive gun change violent behavior?
Click to expand...


It limits the availability of guns thus limiting the damage violent behavior can do


----------



## candycorn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is patently outdated but totally unassailable.  So we have to live with it and any remedy to the violence is spawns will have to be attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment is a principle.  Principles are immutable .
Click to expand...


No it's an amendment.  The part about the Militia was ignored.  Hopefully Hillary will appoint judges that will pay attention


----------



## candycorn

jc456 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gun crime. Pack your bags.*
> What crime?
> 
> 
> 
> Selling a gun to a buyer without an insurance policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chicken little has make an appearance.*
> A million gun "annuities" will cost Illinois $9 billion in 10 years. We can't afford it. No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assumption will be that they are held for the full length.  Won't happen.  Your assumption is that the investments made off of the policies purchased will be $0.00. We're talking billions of new capital for investments; paying off debts, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.*
> Yes, your good intentions are the important thing, even if your policy makes things worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status quo is "good" in your book is it?  Let's hear your plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow still losing the battle.  Retreat should be a word you're used to hearing.  it's time.  the insurance thingy is done.
Click to expand...


Time will tell.


----------



## candycorn

jc456 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the manufacturers double the price of all guns, is that an infringement?  Quadruples the price?  Does what that pharmaceutical guy did, bumping the price from $13 to $750?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but I doubt the manufacture wants to put themselves out of business. I'm just saying.
Click to expand...


Or be shut down...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

suplex3000 said:


> Conservative Americans can't do anything about the rise of the Black Lion.



"Liars"...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is patently outdated but totally unassailable.  So we have to live with it and any remedy to the violence is spawns will have to be attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment is a principle.  Principles are immutable .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's an amendment.  The part about the Militia was ignored.  Hopefully Hillary will appoint judges that will pay attention
Click to expand...


There's nothing being ignored... The Second Amendment, resting in the principle that 'security is essential to the state of freedom, forbids any law which usurps the individual from exercising their God-given right to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, in their effort to preserve the state of freedom.

That an impotent, irrational pop-culture 'feels' otherwise, is the basis of the principle, which is the basis of the amendment, second only in priority, to the forbiddance of government to prevent Americans from speaking out against that irrational popular culture, in hopes that some of them will respond to reason..., as unlikely as it might be.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Hopefully Hillary will appoint judges that will pay attention



ROFL!

I guess you haven't heard... Americans no longer care what the SCOTUS does, says or how it votes.  As with the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy, Americans have withdrawn our consent to be governed by Leftists.

But hey... that's as good a way to kick off the civil war, as any, I guess.


----------



## candycorn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is patently outdated but totally unassailable.  So we have to live with it and any remedy to the violence is spawns will have to be attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment is a principle.  Principles are immutable .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's an amendment.  The part about the Militia was ignored.  Hopefully Hillary will appoint judges that will pay attention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing being ignored... The Second Amendment, resting in the principle that 'security is essential to the state of freedom, forbids any law which usurps the individual from exercising their God-given right to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, in their effort to preserve the state of freedom.
> 
> That an impotent, irrational pop-culture 'feels' otherwise, is the basis of the principle, which is the basis of the amendment, second only in priority, to the forbiddance of government to prevent Americans from speaking out against that irrational popular culture, in hopes that some of them will respond to reason..., as unlikely as it might be.
Click to expand...

 
Nonsense.

The word Militia is in there for a reason.  It's high time the court cited it and ruled based on the actual writing in the Constitution.  We don't want people legislating from the bench, do we?  he he he


----------



## candycorn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully Hillary will appoint judges that will pay attention
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> I guess you haven't heard... Americans no longer care what the SCOTUS does, says or how it votes.  As with the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy, Americans have withdrawn our consent to be governed by Leftists.
> 
> But hey... that's as good a way to kick off the civil war, as any, I guess.
Click to expand...

 
Civil war....don't make me laugh.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully Hillary will appoint judges that will pay attention
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> I guess you haven't heard... Americans no longer care what the SCOTUS does, says or how it votes.  As with the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy, Americans have withdrawn our consent to be governed by Leftists.
> 
> But hey... that's as good a way to kick off the civil war, as any, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil war....don't make me laugh.
Click to expand...


Yes... there's nothing you people can do that will get your ass kicked.  You're immune from such because we, the Americans, possess endless tolerance and have never given any indication that our patience for idiocy, duplicity and subversion of respect for our principles has a bottom.

And there's no evidence in history when, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation ... after a long train of abuses and usurpations, evinces a design to reduce a people under absolute despotism, pursuing invariably the same object, to exercise their right, to rise to meet their duty to throw off a degenerative government, and to provide new guards for their future security against such.

And it's not like the whole dam' world is not presently at war, or spiraling directly at it... .

ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is _ADORABLE!_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> The word Militia is in there for a reason.



Yes... it is.  And that reason is that the sum of well equipped able bodied males, is necessary to the state of freedom.


----------



## candycorn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The word Militia is in there for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... it is.  And that reason is that the sum of well equipped able bodied males, is necessary to the state of freedom.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia...well...there is *Constitutional* protection for you to keep and bear arms. 

Amazing what happens when you read the instructions.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

candycorn said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The word Militia is in there for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... it is.  And that reason is that the sum of well equipped able bodied males, is necessary to the state of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia.
Click to expand...


Once again, for benefit of:
_ *The Intellectually Less Fortunate*_

_*Able bodied males

 ARE *_

_*"The Militia"*_.  


Therefore, where one is an able bodied male...

One is > *IN* < the militia. 

To be regulated, one must be equipped, to be well regulated, one must be WELL EQUIPPED.

TO be well regulated for the Militia, one must be armed with state of the art, military grade firearms. 
This in order to defeat military grade, militaries.​


----------



## candycorn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The word Militia is in there for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... it is.  And that reason is that the sum of well equipped able bodied males, is necessary to the state of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, for benefit of:
> _*The Intellectually Less Fortunate*_
> 
> _*Able bodied males
> 
> ARE *_
> 
> _*"The Militia"*_.  ​
Click to expand...

I'll play along.  So you're saying the infirmed and female have no constitutional standing to own firearms? 



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Therefore, where one is an able bodied male...
> 
> One is > *IN* < the militia.
> 
> To be regulated, one must be equipped, to be well regulated, one must be WELL EQUIPPED.
> 
> TO be well regulated for the Militia, one must be armed with state of the art, military grade firearms.
> This in order to defeat military grade, militaries.


 
Also to be regulated, you must have regulations.  Also to actually be a Militia, you'd have to train regularly, go on maneuvers, train with other forces, etc...  None of which happens

Thanks for playing.  Check please.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not ours to win or lose.
> *
> That will make Obama's failure more palatable.
> 
> *What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> *
> Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.
Click to expand...

Why do you wingnuts love Putin so much?  

He's an authoritarian, yet you complain that Obama is a dictator.

He does what he wants, not what his people want - you accuse Obama of that.

He tightly controls the media - you complain that Obama does that.

I could go on, but all the things you bitch and moan concerning your Obama fantasies, Putin actually does the same things in reality, yet you all love him.


----------



## Jroc

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not ours to win or lose.
> *
> That will make Obama's failure more palatable.
> 
> *What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> *
> Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you wingnuts love Putin so much?
> 
> He's an authoritarian, yet you complain that Obama is a dictator.
> 
> He does what he wants, not what his people want - you accuse Obama of that.
> 
> He tightly controls the media - you complain that Obama does that.
> 
> I could go on, but all the things you bitch and moan concerning your Obama fantasies, Putin actually does the same things in reality, yet you all love him.
Click to expand...

I cant stand Putin you clown..Why are you such an idiot? You must work really hard at it, because you're very good at it..Clown


----------



## dannyboys

suplex3000 said:


> Conservative Americans can't do anything about the rise of the Black Lion.


Oh ya. The "black Lion" is REALLY rising. The "Black Lion" has to go begging for fucking food stamps and free everything every fucking month from the 'White Lion'.
The "Black Lion" AKA 'Bonobo' isn't fucking sentient enough to tie its own shoelaces  pal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not ours to win or lose.
> *
> That will make Obama's failure more palatable.
> 
> *What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> *
> Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you wingnuts love Putin so much?
> 
> He's an authoritarian, yet you complain that Obama is a dictator.
> 
> He does what he wants, not what his people want - you accuse Obama of that.
> 
> He tightly controls the media - you complain that Obama does that.
> 
> I could go on, but all the things you bitch and moan concerning your Obama fantasies, Putin actually does the same things in reality, yet you all love him.
Click to expand...


Hillary and Obama used a reset button on Putin.
They're so smart, they'll make sure he doesn't cause any trouble.
When Romney said during a debate that Russia was a major foreign policy issue,
Obama laughed it off, the 80s called, they want their foreign policy back.

So let's talk about the great job Obama is doing handling Putin.
You know, now that he can be more flexible, after the 2012 election.

Then we can talk about how much I dislike Commies, whether they're Commie strong men, like Putin,
or Commie weak men, like Obama.


----------



## Papageorgio

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Artificially driving up prices through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> You can't.
> You won't
> 
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).
> 
> I win.  As always.
Click to expand...


You win if it comes to pass, which it won't. So far you lose.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia...well...there is *Constitutional* protection for you to keep and bear arms.


Indeed, there is.   It says so right ion the 2nd Amendment.  Glad you agree.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia...well...there is *Constitutional* protection for you to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is.   It says so right ion the 2nd Amendment.  Glad you agree.
Click to expand...


I mis-spoke.

The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.  Sorry for that mix-up.


----------



## candycorn

Papageorgio said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're having to prove intent....good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> You can't.
> You won't
> 
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).
> 
> I win.  As always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You win if it comes to pass, which it won't. So far you lose.
Click to expand...


I win until you can quote the Constitution in reference to pricing weapons. Get busy little man.


----------



## CMike

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual


So?


----------



## Papageorgio

candycorn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You supplied the intent noted above - "drive the price up and you dry the pool out".
> 
> 
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> You can't.
> You won't
> 
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).
> 
> I win.  As always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You win if it comes to pass, which it won't. So far you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I win until you can quote the Constitution in reference to pricing weapons. Get busy little man.
Click to expand...


I don't have to worry about it because it will never happen. Quit crying.


----------



## candycorn

Papageorgio said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I stated a free market truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> You can't.
> You won't
> 
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).
> 
> I win.  As always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You win if it comes to pass, which it won't. So far you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I win until you can quote the Constitution in reference to pricing weapons. Get busy little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about it because it will never happen. Quit crying.
Click to expand...

 
Coming from the guy who thought the ACA would be overturned and a Romney supporter...you're batting 0.00 little man.


----------



## Papageorgio

candycorn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...  and you intend to "dry the pool up" by artificiallry raising the cost of gun ownership.
> Artificially driving up the cost of exercising a right through government action with the intent to limit the exercise of a right infringes upon the right.
> Every time.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> For the 10th time (at least); cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about pricing.
> 
> You can't.
> You won't
> 
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution about pricing, there is nothing unconstitutional about it--if that were the intent (which it is not).
> 
> I win.  As always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You win if it comes to pass, which it won't. So far you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I win until you can quote the Constitution in reference to pricing weapons. Get busy little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about it because it will never happen. Quit crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from the guy who thought the ACA would be overturned and a Romney supporter...you're batting 0.00 little man.
Click to expand...


I thought the ACA would be overturned by Congress? Nope.

Didn't you predict Atlanta to be in the Super Bowl last year?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia...well...there is *Constitutional* protection for you to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is.   It says so right ion the 2nd Amendment.  Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mis-spoke.
> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
Click to expand...

Ah
Well, this just means you're lying.
Again.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia...well...there is *Constitutional* protection for you to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is.   It says so right ion the 2nd Amendment.  Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mis-spoke.
> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah
> Well, this just means you're lying.
> Again.
Click to expand...


The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?


----------



## namvet

nothing here worth reading


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia...well...there is *Constitutional* protection for you to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is.   It says so right ion the 2nd Amendment.  Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mis-spoke.
> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah
> Well, this just means you're lying.
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?
Click to expand...

You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
That is, you lied
Again.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And if you're not a member of the "well-regulated" Militia...well...there is *Constitutional* protection for you to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is.   It says so right ion the 2nd Amendment.  Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mis-spoke.
> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah
> Well, this just means you're lying.
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
Click to expand...

 
If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.

Unless you want to take the dubious tract of claiming that the framers were just throwing words out there for no reason, the word Militia must mean something. 

Obviouisly they wished for the Militia members to have the weapons.  Does that mean that society must give up all of the weapons? No. Not at all.  The Framers didn't include anything about you having or not having the right to air conditioning or Cable TV as well.   All it means is that there is no constitutional basis for the right to have weaponry.


----------



## candycorn

namvet said:


> nothing here worth reading


 
Thanks, made it easy to skip right over your post.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is.   It says so right ion the 2nd Amendment.  Glad you agree.
> 
> 
> 
> I mis-spoke.
> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah
> Well, this just means you're lying.
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
In fact - nothing- supports your position.
You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.


----------



## Synthaholic

Jroc said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not ours to win or lose.
> *
> That will make Obama's failure more palatable.
> 
> *What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> *
> Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you wingnuts love Putin so much?
> 
> He's an authoritarian, yet you complain that Obama is a dictator.
> 
> He does what he wants, not what his people want - you accuse Obama of that.
> 
> He tightly controls the media - you complain that Obama does that.
> 
> I could go on, but all the things you bitch and moan concerning your Obama fantasies, Putin actually does the same things in reality, yet you all love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cant stand Putin you clown..Why are you such an idiot? You must work really hard at it, because you're very good at it..Clown
Click to expand...

I was talking to the wingnuts, not the single-issue Israel-Firsters.

They all LOVE Putin.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never told us; where are all the bills to repeal Obama care?  The GOP seems to be scared little bitches---you guys were so brave a few months ago.  What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not ours to win or lose.
> *
> That will make Obama's failure more palatable.
> 
> *What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> *
> Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you wingnuts love Putin so much?
> 
> He's an authoritarian, yet you complain that Obama is a dictator.
> 
> He does what he wants, not what his people want - you accuse Obama of that.
> 
> He tightly controls the media - you complain that Obama does that.
> 
> I could go on, but all the things you bitch and moan concerning your Obama fantasies, Putin actually does the same things in reality, yet you all love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary and Obama used a reset button on Putin.
> They're so smart, they'll make sure he doesn't cause any trouble.
> When Romney said during a debate that Russia was a major foreign policy issue,
> Obama laughed it off, the 80s called, they want their foreign policy back.
> 
> So let's talk about the great job Obama is doing handling Putin.
> You know, now that he can be more flexible, after the 2012 election.
> 
> Then we can talk about how much I dislike Commies, whether they're Commie strong men, like Putin,
> or Commie weak men, like Obama.
Click to expand...

Putin doesn't need to be "handled".  Trying to "handle" him will only provoke him into doing things that are against out - and most times, his - interests.

Obama has dealt with Putin much better than Bush ever did.  He put very strong sanctions on Russia which has halted Putin's negative actions.

What did Bush do when Putin invaded Georgia?  Nothing.  Didn't even come out and condemn it in person.  Just released a mealy-mouthed press blurb.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not ours to win or lose.
> *
> That will make Obama's failure more palatable.
> 
> *What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> *
> Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you wingnuts love Putin so much?
> 
> He's an authoritarian, yet you complain that Obama is a dictator.
> 
> He does what he wants, not what his people want - you accuse Obama of that.
> 
> He tightly controls the media - you complain that Obama does that.
> 
> I could go on, but all the things you bitch and moan concerning your Obama fantasies, Putin actually does the same things in reality, yet you all love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary and Obama used a reset button on Putin.
> They're so smart, they'll make sure he doesn't cause any trouble.
> When Romney said during a debate that Russia was a major foreign policy issue,
> Obama laughed it off, the 80s called, they want their foreign policy back.
> 
> So let's talk about the great job Obama is doing handling Putin.
> You know, now that he can be more flexible, after the 2012 election.
> 
> Then we can talk about how much I dislike Commies, whether they're Commie strong men, like Putin,
> or Commie weak men, like Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putin doesn't need to be "handled".  Trying to "handle" him will only provoke him into doing things that are against out - and most times, his - interests.
> 
> Obama has dealt with Putin much better than Bush ever did.  He put very strong sanctions on Russia which has halted Putin's negative actions.
> 
> What did Bush do when Putin invaded Georgia?  Nothing.  Didn't even come out and condemn it in person.  Just released a mealy-mouthed press blurb.
Click to expand...


*Obama has dealt with Putin much better than Bush ever did.*

LOL!
*
He put very strong sanctions on Russia which has halted Putin's negative actions.*

Yeah, they sure halted his move into Syria. Not to mention his attacks on Obama's moderate Syrian fighters.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> Putin doesn't need to be "handled".  Trying to "handle" him will only provoke him into doing things that are against out - and most times, his - interests.
> Obama has dealt with Putin much better than Bush ever did.  He put very strong sanctions on Russia which has halted Putin's negative actions.
> What did Bush do when Putin invaded Georgia?  Nothing.  Didn't even come out and condemn it in person.  Just released a mealy-mouthed press blurb.


Mindless nonsense.
Why is Putin acting in Syria?
Our willful absence.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL!


^^^ The full extent of your ability to counter my post with facts.

Well done!


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, they sure halted his move into Syria. Not to mention his attacks on Obama's moderate Syrian fighters.


Where was there ever an objective to keep Russia out of Syria?  Produce some links.

Russia is attacking al Nusra, AKA your friends al Qaeda.

There are no moderate Syrians.  They are only moderate until they gain power, then they hate America just as much as the rest of them.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL!


When you're finished laughing, show us the actions Bush took when Russia invaded Georgia.

Then I'll get to laugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ The full extent of your ability to counter my post with facts.
> 
> Well done!
Click to expand...


Your posts need to be laughed at more.
The idea that Obama has handled any area of foreign policy well is ridiculous.
Well done!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they sure halted his move into Syria. Not to mention his attacks on Obama's moderate Syrian fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> Where was there ever an objective to keep Russia out of Syria?  Produce some links.
> 
> Russia is attacking al Nusra, AKA your friends al Qaeda.
> 
> There are no moderate Syrians.  They are only moderate until they gain power, then they hate America just as much as the rest of them.
Click to expand...


*Where was there ever an objective to keep Russia out of Syria?*

He didn't want to keep Russia out of Syria, so it's no big deal?
How'd that Red Line work out? Wow, genius!

*There are no moderate Syrians.
*
Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mis-spoke.
> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah
> Well, this just means you're lying.
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
Click to expand...

 
Just reading the amendment....As soon as Hillary gets some justices to do the same thing...booyah!


----------



## candycorn

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama needs more to whine about? Isn't he busy losing the Middle East to Putin?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not ours to win or lose.
> 
> You show the small-mindedness of the modern wingnut.
> 
> What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not ours to win or lose.
> *
> That will make Obama's failure more palatable.
> 
> *What happens the first time a Russian jet gets shot down and the pilot is beheaded?
> *
> Russia will probably level the area. Kill a bunch of bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you wingnuts love Putin so much?
> 
> He's an authoritarian, yet you complain that Obama is a dictator.
> 
> He does what he wants, not what his people want - you accuse Obama of that.
> 
> He tightly controls the media - you complain that Obama does that.
> 
> I could go on, but all the things you bitch and moan concerning your Obama fantasies, Putin actually does the same things in reality, yet you all love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary and Obama used a reset button on Putin.
> They're so smart, they'll make sure he doesn't cause any trouble.
> When Romney said during a debate that Russia was a major foreign policy issue,
> Obama laughed it off, the 80s called, they want their foreign policy back.
> 
> So let's talk about the great job Obama is doing handling Putin.
> You know, now that he can be more flexible, after the 2012 election.
> 
> Then we can talk about how much I dislike Commies, whether they're Commie strong men, like Putin,
> or Commie weak men, like Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putin doesn't need to be "handled".  Trying to "handle" him will only provoke him into doing things that are against out - and most times, his - interests.
> 
> Obama has dealt with Putin much better than Bush ever did.  He put very strong sanctions on Russia which has halted Putin's negative actions.
> 
> What did Bush do when Putin invaded Georgia?  Nothing.  Didn't even come out and condemn it in person.  Just released a mealy-mouthed press blurb.
Click to expand...

 
I would love to see some candidate suggest we go to war with Russia over Syria....That seems to be what is being suggested here by the haters.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah
> Well, this just means you're lying.
> Again.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reading the amendment
Click to expand...

Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
G'head.  I dare you.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
Click to expand...

 
The word Militia is there for a reason.  As soon as Hillary appoints some judges who realize this; we'll stop the monthly bloodbaths you're such a fan of.  Sorry.  Sucks to be you.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia isn't there for a reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
Click to expand...

 
Or to put it a way you're comfortable with; I'll quote it when you quote the part of the Constitution that says pricing=infringement.

Get busy littleman.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  As soon as Hillary appoints some judges who realize this; we'll stop the monthly bloodbaths you're such a fan of.  Sorry.  Sucks to be you.
Click to expand...

*
The word Militia is there for a reason.
*
But the reason is not to limit the rights of gun owners.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  As soon as Hillary appoints some judges who realize this; we'll stop the monthly bloodbaths you're such a fan of.  Sorry.  Sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The word Militia is there for a reason. *
> But the reason is not to limit the rights of gun owners.
Click to expand...

 
From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia (a well-regulated Militia at that). 

Of course the knee-jerk response of gun crazies is to feel that this means they can't own weaponry.  Nobody is saying that.  Just that there is no Constitutional coverage of the right to own the weaponry; just like there is no constitutional right to/ban on owning a laser printer or Keurig. 

We don't want judges legislating from the bench and reading stuff into the Constitution that isn't there; do we?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  As soon as Hillary appoints some judges who realize this; we'll stop the monthly bloodbaths you're such a fan of.  Sorry.  Sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The word Militia is there for a reason. *
> But the reason is not to limit the rights of gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia (a well-regulated Militia at that).
> 
> Of course the knee-jerk response of gun crazies is to feel that this means they can't own weaponry.  Nobody is saying that.  Just that there is no Constitutional coverage of the right to own the weaponry; just like there is no constitutional right to/ban on owning a laser printer or Keurig.
> 
> We don't want judges legislating from the bench and reading stuff into the Constitution that isn't there; do we?
Click to expand...


*From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia
*
No it wasn't. Because it doesn't.

*We don't want judges legislating from the bench and reading stuff into the Constitution that isn't there; do we?
*
Or reading stuff out. Gun rights have been going in the right direction and away from you, for decades.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  As soon as Hillary appoints some judges who realize this; we'll stop the monthly bloodbaths you're such a fan of.  Sorry.  Sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The word Militia is there for a reason. *
> But the reason is not to limit the rights of gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia (a well-regulated Militia at that).
> 
> Of course the knee-jerk response of gun crazies is to feel that this means they can't own weaponry.  Nobody is saying that.  Just that there is no Constitutional coverage of the right to own the weaponry; just like there is no constitutional right to/ban on owning a laser printer or Keurig.
> 
> We don't want judges legislating from the bench and reading stuff into the Constitution that isn't there; do we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia
> *
> No it wasn't. Because it doesn't.
> 
> *We don't want judges legislating from the bench and reading stuff into the Constitution that isn't there; do we?
> *
> Or reading stuff out. Gun rights have been going in the right direction and away from you, for decades.
Click to expand...

 
The right direction is near monthly campus based blood baths and inner cities that are very dangerous? 

Meanwhile back in the real world, Hillary's first 100 days will likely be when she can ram something through.  It's a shame the election is not until 2016.  Can't wait!


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ The full extent of your ability to counter my post with facts.
> 
> Well done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts need to be laughed at more.
> The idea that Obama has handled any area of foreign policy well is ridiculous.
> Well done!
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe the next POTUS will kill bin Laden.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He didn't want to keep Russia out of Syria, so it's no big deal?



Correct.  Russia is making a last ditch effort to save their base, and save their tin pot dictator.  They will fail at both.



> How'd that Red Line work out? Wow, genius!



The GOP House denied Obama's plan to attack Syria.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!


Obama didn't give money to anyone.  The GOP House controls all funding.

Why am I arguing with someone who:

a - doesn't know how the government works
b - doesn't know how to use the quote feature on this site.


----------



## GWV5903

Synthaholic said:


> Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual



Better lock up all those crazy Conservative Republicans, need to start confiscating all their guns and ammo too...

Synthia is going to lead the posse...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  As soon as Hillary appoints some judges who realize this; we'll stop the monthly bloodbaths you're such a fan of.  Sorry.  Sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The word Militia is there for a reason. *
> But the reason is not to limit the rights of gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia (a well-regulated Militia at that).
> 
> Of course the knee-jerk response of gun crazies is to feel that this means they can't own weaponry.  Nobody is saying that.  Just that there is no Constitutional coverage of the right to own the weaponry; just like there is no constitutional right to/ban on owning a laser printer or Keurig.
> 
> We don't want judges legislating from the bench and reading stuff into the Constitution that isn't there; do we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia
> *
> No it wasn't. Because it doesn't.
> 
> *We don't want judges legislating from the bench and reading stuff into the Constitution that isn't there; do we?
> *
> Or reading stuff out. Gun rights have been going in the right direction and away from you, for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right direction is near monthly campus based blood baths and inner cities that are very dangerous?
> 
> Meanwhile back in the real world, Hillary's first 100 days will likely be when she can ram something through.  It's a shame the election is not until 2016.  Can't wait!
Click to expand...

*
The right direction is.......



*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't give money to anyone.  The GOP House controls all funding.
> 
> Why am I arguing with someone who:
> 
> a - doesn't know how the government works
> b - doesn't know how to use the quote feature on this site.
Click to expand...



Obama Proposes $500 Million to Aid Syrian Rebels

The quote feature leaves something to be desired.
Sorry that you're so easily confused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't give money to anyone.  The GOP House controls all funding.
> 
> Why am I arguing with someone who:
> 
> a - doesn't know how the government works
> b - doesn't know how to use the quote feature on this site.
Click to expand...


*doesn't know how the government works*


_A $500m effort to train Syrian forces against the __Islamic State__ has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling the jihadi army, the top military commander overseeing the war has testified._

_*“We’re talking four or five,”* General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee on Wednesday. _

_The training initiative is Barack Obama’s linchpin for retaking Syrian territory from Isis. The Pentagon anticipated in late 2014 that __it would have trained 5,000 anti-Isis Syrian rebels__ by now._

US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies

Good show! Excellent job Obama! LOL!


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know there is no basis in fact for your statement that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> That is, you lied
> Again.
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.
Click to expand...

Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
You lose.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  As soon as Hillary appoints some judges who realize this; we'll stop the monthly bloodbaths you're such a fan of.  Sorry.  Sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The word Militia is there for a reason. *
> But the reason is not to limit the rights of gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From any sane/sober reading it was to limit gun owners to members of a Militia (a well-regulated Militia at that).
Click to expand...

Quote the part of the constitution that says this..


----------



## Wildman

candycorn said:


> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.



*more stupidity piled upon more stupidity, what the fuck does this mean to you: 
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"*

i'll repeat it one more time in case you did not read it correctly the first time.., OK??

*the right* *of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm lying, James Madison or whomever wrote the 2nd Amendment was lying too.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
Click to expand...


The word Militia is there for a reason.  I win.  Quite easily I might add.  But then again, consider the feeble opposition....was there ever a doubt?


----------



## candycorn

Wildman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason. If you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *more stupidity piled upon more stupidity, what the fuck does this mean to you:
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"*
> 
> i'll repeat it one more time in case you did not read it correctly the first time.., OK??
> 
> *the right* *of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*.
Click to expand...


You're leaving out part of the amendment.  Is it because you can't read it or are you just inherently dishonest?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the 2A supports your position that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons. "
> In fact - nothing- supports your position.
> You know this -- and thus, you;re;lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
Click to expand...

Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
Again, You lose.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just reading the amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
Click to expand...


The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the part of the amendment that says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
> G'head.  I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
No?
You lose.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
Click to expand...

It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.
Click to expand...

Thank you for again admitting that you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
Since you agree you cannot cite the Constitution, you understand that you have nothing but your opinion to support your opinion..
This means you lose.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again admitting that you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> Since you agree you cannot cite the Constitution, you understand that you have nothing but your opinion to support your opinion..
> This means you lose.
Click to expand...


I'll admit I'm right but we all knew that.  Your reluctance to answer a simple question is simply an admission that you are wrong.  But you knew that which is why you go into broken-record mode.  It's really quite sad that a supposedly grown "man" is so easily painted into a corner.

TIme to change your diaper.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again admitting that you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> Since you agree you cannot cite the Constitution, you understand that you have nothing but your opinion to support your opinion..
> This means you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reluctance to answer a simple question is simply an admission that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
This means you lose


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again admitting that you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> Since you agree you cannot cite the Constitution, you understand that you have nothing but your opinion to support your opinion..
> This means you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reluctance to answer a simple question is simply an admission that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
Click to expand...


Polly want a cracker?  

It says Militia for a reason?  Do you deny that?  

Bwak!!!


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again admitting that you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> Since you agree you cannot cite the Constitution, you understand that you have nothing but your opinion to support your opinion..
> This means you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reluctance to answer a simple question is simply an admission that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason?  Do you deny that?
Click to expand...

Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
This means you lose


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
Click to expand...


What's the reason?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
Click to expand...


Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
Click to expand...

Prove you claim that ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
Be sure to cite the constitution when doing so.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for again admitting that you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> Since you agree you cannot cite the Constitution, you understand that you have nothing but your opinion to support your opinion..
> This means you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reluctance to answer a simple question is simply an admission that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason?  Do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
Click to expand...


he he he....relegated to being a parrot.

Again, answer the question little penis....why is the word "Milita" in the Amendment?  

I'll give you a cracker.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for again admitting that you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> Since you agree you cannot cite the Constitution, you understand that you have nothing but your opinion to support your opinion..
> This means you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Your reluctance to answer a simple question is simply an admission that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason?  Do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he he he....relegated to being a parrot.
> Again, answer the question little penis....why is the word "Milita" in the Amendment?
> I'll give you a cracker.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Until then -- you lose.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
Click to expand...


It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.

Your turn.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
Click to expand...


Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
Click to expand...


Yes. Your turn.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reluctance to answer a simple question is simply an admission that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason?  Do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he he he....relegated to being a parrot.
> Again, answer the question little penis....why is the word "Milita" in the Amendment?
> I'll give you a cracker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Until then -- you lose.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for an adult to join the conversation there Polly.  Meanwhile, little penis, why not answer the quesiton....why is the word "militia" in the Second Amendment?  

It's not going away.....he he he.  

Start your evasive maneuvers immediately!!!!


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Your turn.
Click to expand...


I think there was a word requirement and they put that in there for that reason--to reach the minimum number of words.  Either that or they intended weapons to be owned by Milita members who trained regularly to defend the nation.  One or the other.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
Click to expand...

What's that?
You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
You hate the fact that this means you lose?


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's that?
> You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
> You hate the fact that this means you lose?
Click to expand...


Any sane reading of the 2nd Amendment delivers one to that truth.  Sorry if that pisses you off little penis but dems da facts.  Live with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there was a word requirement and they put that in there for that reason--to reach the minimum number of words.  Either that or they intended weapons to be owned by Milita members who trained regularly to defend the nation.  One or the other.
Click to expand...

*
Either that or they intended weapons to be owned by Milita members who trained regularly to defend the nation.* 


They could have just replaced the word "people" with the word "militia" if they intended as you claim.
But they didn't, because you're wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason?  Do you deny that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he he he....relegated to being a parrot.
> Again, answer the question little penis....why is the word "Milita" in the Amendment?
> I'll give you a cracker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Until then -- you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for an adult to join the conversation there
Click to expand...

Awww...  the anti-gun loon makes a claim regarding the Constitution and then gets all upset because she cannot support her claim in accordance with the standards she sets for others.

Further poof that you not only lose, but accept the depth of your loss.

Your claim that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" has no basis in reality as the Constitution says no such thing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's that?
> You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
> You hate the fact that this means you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sane reading of the 2nd Amendment delivers one to that truth.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there was a word requirement and they put that in there for that reason--to reach the minimum number of words.  Either that or they intended weapons to be owned by Milita members who trained regularly to defend the nation.  One or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Either that or they intended weapons to be owned by Milita members who trained regularly to defend the nation.*
> 
> 
> They could have just replaced the word "people" with the word "militia" if they intended as you claim.
> But they didn't, because you're wrong.
Click to expand...


I literally could not contain my giggling at that statement.  But they didn't...the word Militia is there for a reason.  It wasn't a "shout out".


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says Militia for a reason?  Do you deny that?
> 
> 
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he he he....relegated to being a parrot.
> Again, answer the question little penis....why is the word "Milita" in the Amendment?
> I'll give you a cracker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Until then -- you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for an adult to join the conversation there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww...  the anti-gun loon makes a claim regarding the Constitution and then gets all upset because she cannot support her claim in accordance with the standards she sets for others.
> 
> Further poof that you not only lose, but accept the depth of your loss.
> 
> Your claim that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" has no basis in reality as the Constitution says no such thing.
Click to expand...


Of course I didn't say that but facts are foreign objects to you little penis.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you regale us with why you think the word is in the Amendment?  The comedy will be worth the wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's that?
> You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
> You hate the fact that this means you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sane reading of the 2nd Amendment delivers one to that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The word Militia is there for a reason.  What was it there for again?  Oh yeah, you're on parrot mode.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says she that repeatedly refuses to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" - because she knows she cannot.
> This means you lose
> 
> 
> 
> he he he....relegated to being a parrot.
> Again, answer the question little penis....why is the word "Milita" in the Amendment?
> I'll give you a cracker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Until then -- you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for an adult to join the conversation there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww...  the anti-gun loon makes a claim regarding the Constitution and then gets all upset because she cannot support her claim in accordance with the standards she sets for others.
> 
> Further poof that you not only lose, but accept the depth of your loss.
> 
> Your claim that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" has no basis in reality as the Constitution says no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I didn't say that but facts are foreign objects to you little penis.
Click to expand...

Fact:
Your claim that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" has no basis in reality as the Constitution says no such thing
Fact:
You know this.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's that?
> You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
> You hate the fact that this means you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sane reading of the 2nd Amendment delivers one to that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  What was it there for again?  Oh yeah, you're on parrot mode.
Click to expand...

Fact:
Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
Fact:
You know you cannot support your claim in accordance with the standards you set for others.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> What's that?
> You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
> You hate the fact that this means you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sane reading of the 2nd Amendment delivers one to that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  What was it there for again?  Oh yeah, you're on parrot mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact:
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
> Fact:
> You know you cannot support your claim in accordance with the standards you set for others.
Click to expand...


Fact:  Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment--the entire text:

*Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bill of Rights Transcript Text
*
The words "well regulated Militia" are there.  I'm not making it up.  The framers put it there for a reason.  If they had said that you needed to wear orange gloves or a tri-corner hat to own weapons; it would be just as valid.  

To ignore the first part in favor of the second is intellectual dishonesty.  That is the only standard little penis.  Read the instructions and operate by them.  One will also note that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about the pricing of weaponry having to be cheap.  Hence my plan is not only good; it's Constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Fact:  Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment--the entire text:
> *Amendment II
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*


Fact:
Nowhere here is found the text that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
Fact:
Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
Fact:
You know you cannot support your claim in accordance with the standards you set for others
Fact:
You continue to lose.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:  Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment--the entire text:
> *Amendment II
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:
> Nowhere here is found the text that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> Fact:
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
> Fact:
> You know you cannot support your claim in accordance with the standards you set for others
> Fact:
> You continue to lose.
Click to expand...


Ahh, little penis continues to run from the questions....I'll come back later and perhaps you'll be a bit more manly then. I seriously doubt it but there is hope.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:  Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment--the entire text:
> *Amendment II
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:
> Nowhere here is found the text that "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons.
> Fact:
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
> Fact:
> You know you cannot support your claim in accordance with the standards you set for others
> Fact:
> You continue to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, little penis continues to run from the questions
Click to expand...

Speaking of running...

Cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"

You can't.
You won't

Since there is nothing in the Constitution about "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons", then doing so does not run contrary to the Constitution in any way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there was a word requirement and they put that in there for that reason--to reach the minimum number of words.  Either that or they intended weapons to be owned by Milita members who trained regularly to defend the nation.  One or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Either that or they intended weapons to be owned by Milita members who trained regularly to defend the nation.*
> 
> 
> They could have just replaced the word "people" with the word "militia" if they intended as you claim.
> But they didn't, because you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I literally could not contain my giggling at that statement.  But they didn't...the word Militia is there for a reason.  It wasn't a "shout out".
Click to expand...


*I literally could not contain my giggling at that statement.
*
Because you're an idiot.

*the word Militia is there for a reason.* 

It's not there to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
So why is it there?


----------



## peach174

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means militias are cool. It doesn't mean you have to be in one to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's that?
> You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
> You hate the fact that this means you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sane reading of the 2nd Amendment delivers one to that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  What was it there for again?  Oh yeah, you're on parrot mode.
Click to expand...


So are the words "the right of the people" added by both Federalists and Anti Federalists.
Both Federalists and Anti federalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an *armed population not just the militia*.


----------



## candycorn

peach174 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool.  So some dude in a powdered wig decided to give a shout out to Militias in the middle of the Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> What's that?
> You hate the fact that you know you cannot cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"?
> You hate the fact that this means you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sane reading of the 2nd Amendment delivers one to that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion is not found in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  What was it there for again?  Oh yeah, you're on parrot mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are the words "the right of the people" added by both Federalists and Anti Federalists.
> Both Federalists and Anti federalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an *armed population not just the militia*.
Click to expand...


It would be a lot like saying that all of the 18 year olds were in favor of 18 year olds being given the right to vote by the 26th Amendment.  There were likely some who thought 18 y/o were not mentally ready and some who thought 16 y/o were. 

The Constitution says what it says.  We should enforce it.  Just not the parts that are popular.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> .
> The Constitution says what it says.  We should enforce it.  Just not the parts that are popular.


Really?
Cite the part of the Constitution that says ANYTHING about "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
You can't.
You won't


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't give money to anyone.  The GOP House controls all funding.
> 
> Why am I arguing with someone who:
> 
> a - doesn't know how the government works
> b - doesn't know how to use the quote feature on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Proposes $500 Million to Aid Syrian Rebels
> 
> The quote feature leaves something to be desired.
> Sorry that you're so easily confused.
Click to expand...

He also proposed a huge Jobs Bill.  The House didn't approve the funding.

He can propose anything he wants.

Another FAIL, Todd.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't give money to anyone.  The GOP House controls all funding.
> 
> Why am I arguing with someone who:
> 
> a - doesn't know how the government works
> b - doesn't know how to use the quote feature on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *doesn't know how the government works*
> 
> 
> _A $500m effort to train Syrian forces against the __Islamic State__ has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling the jihadi army, the top military commander overseeing the war has testified._
> 
> _*“We’re talking four or five,”* General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee on Wednesday. _
> 
> _The training initiative is Barack Obama’s linchpin for retaking Syrian territory from Isis. The Pentagon anticipated in late 2014 that __it would have trained 5,000 anti-Isis Syrian rebels__ by now._
> 
> US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies
> 
> Good show! Excellent job Obama! LOL!
Click to expand...

I believe this was McCain and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham's Big Idea.  Obama went along with it and gave the mission to the military. * The military failed miserably*.  They should be re-named Todd.

But if you can show where Obama trained anyone, I'm certainly open-minded enough to look at it.


----------



## Synthaholic

candycorn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah,.   So you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
Click to expand...

You won this pages ago, and I'm set to 40 posts per page!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter is, you and I both know  there is no part of the Constitution that says ""if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
> Again, you admit cannot quote the text of the constitution that supports your claim.
> Again, You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word Militia is there for a reason.  You can ignore it all you want but soon the courts won't and voila...the monthly blood baths stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry -- were you going to cite the part of the Constitution that says """if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".?
> No?
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says Militia for a reason.  Do you deny that little man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won this pages ago, and I'm set to 40 posts per page!
Click to expand...

if there was ever proof that CC lost an argument, it's an endorsement from you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Synthaholic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't give money to anyone.  The GOP House controls all funding.
> 
> Why am I arguing with someone who:
> 
> a - doesn't know how the government works
> b - doesn't know how to use the quote feature on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *doesn't know how the government works*
> 
> 
> _A $500m effort to train Syrian forces against the __Islamic State__ has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling the jihadi army, the top military commander overseeing the war has testified._
> 
> _*“We’re talking four or five,”* General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee on Wednesday. _
> 
> _The training initiative is Barack Obama’s linchpin for retaking Syrian territory from Isis. The Pentagon anticipated in late 2014 that __it would have trained 5,000 anti-Isis Syrian rebels__ by now._
> 
> US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies
> 
> Good show! Excellent job Obama! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe this was McCain and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham's Big Idea.  Obama went along with it and gave the mission to the military. * The military failed miserably*.  They should be re-named Todd.
> 
> But if you can show where Obama trained anyone, I'm certainly open-minded enough to look at it.
Click to expand...


*Obama went along with it and gave the mission to the military. The military failed miserably
*
Obama failed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who did Obama give all the money and supplies to, radical Syrians? Wow, genius!
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't give money to anyone.  The GOP House controls all funding.
> 
> Why am I arguing with someone who:
> 
> a - doesn't know how the government works
> b - doesn't know how to use the quote feature on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *doesn't know how the government works*
> 
> 
> _A $500m effort to train Syrian forces against the __Islamic State__ has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling the jihadi army, the top military commander overseeing the war has testified._
> 
> _*“We’re talking four or five,”* General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee on Wednesday. _
> 
> _The training initiative is Barack Obama’s linchpin for retaking Syrian territory from Isis. The Pentagon anticipated in late 2014 that __it would have trained 5,000 anti-Isis Syrian rebels__ by now._
> 
> US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies
> 
> Good show! Excellent job Obama! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe this was McCain and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham's Big Idea.  Obama went along with it and gave the mission to the military. * The military failed miserably*.  They should be re-named Todd.
> 
> But if you can show where Obama trained anyone, I'm certainly open-minded enough to look at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama went along with it and gave the mission to the military. The military failed miserably*
> Obama failed.
Click to expand...

Failure always falls on the head of leadership.
Who leads the military?   The Commander-in-Chief.


----------



## Conservative65

Asclepias said:


> How much do you want to bet that even though he is a self professed con some of the clowns on the board will make up every excuse to say why he was not up to and including some elaborate conspiracy theory?



I thought you Liberal idiots said conservatives are religious nuts.  This guy said he's not religious and doesn't like organized religion.


----------



## Brian_1349

I'm sure many more of them described themselves as liberal though for some reason liberals stay silent about it.


----------



## skookerasbil

Synthaholic pulls this stunt *every time* there is a shooting or riot.........says ALL of these events touched off by a "conservative"!!!! You can set your watch by it......within hours the thread is posted.


ok s0n............

Dang what a Shirley...........


----------



## M14 Shooter

skookerasbil said:


> Synthaholic pulls this stunt *every time* there is a shooting or riot


Because she's a mindless partisan bigot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was likely their intent.  We've just interpreted it differently.  A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which was likely their intent.*
> 
> Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!
> 
> *A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.*
> 
> Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
> And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remains to be seen.  Right now, her chances look very good for not only winning but replacing Scalia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She can't win if she's indicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She won't be indicted and she will win.
Click to expand...


*and she will win. *

Is that your final answer?


----------

