# Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 8, 2016)

i take it he survived


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> i take it he survived


I hope not but the story didn't really specify.


----------



## SuperDemocrat (May 8, 2016)

The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

SuperDemocrat said:


> The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?


Exactly. Our founders didn't say the right to bear "muskets". Or the right to bear "handguns". They said the right to bear _arms_. There are no limits on the type of weapons we can have. Of it's ok for the government to have them, and the government answers to the people, then it's sure as hell of for the people to have them.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 8, 2016)

Nukes!


----------



## there4eyeM (May 8, 2016)

No need to thank 'God'. Humans are the source of vocabulary.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.

Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Yet another person who was able to save themselves and their family because the Constitution afforded them the right to do so.

Family of Four Awakened by Man Shattering Windows and Kicking at Their Front Door. So Dad Pulls Out His 9mm Handgun and Heads Toward the Trouble.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 8, 2016)

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.


----------



## hangover (May 8, 2016)

God is positive energy....guns are negative energy that destroys....therefore you worship Satan.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


This fails as a straw man fallacy, hasty generalization fallacy, and speculation fallacy.

Most on the right have been contriving and propagating disgusting lies for decades.

And given the fact that most on the right seek to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law, they’re in no position to accuse others of ‘waging a war’ on women.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

SuperDemocrat said:


> The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?


Conservatives also have the right to exhibit their ignorance and stupidity, a right you exercise freely and often.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


How could anyone "compel women to give birth"? 

If you don't want to give birth, don't get pregnant. A woman has a right to her own body. No question about it. But the baby is *not* _her_ body. It's someone else's body and she has not right to vacuum the childs arms off or smash its skull in with a small hammer.

As usual, everything you said is disingenuous. And, as usual, you're all pissed off because the facts show you to be the fool that you are and you can't dispute them. So you nonsensically cry "stay man" without even attempting to back that up (because you can't).


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> > The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?
> ...


Says the dumbest person on USMB who attempts to talk about the Constitution without ever having read it.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.


They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> > The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?
> ...


Wrong.

You and other rightwing nitwits whine about the Second Amendment yet are completely ignorant as to its meaning and case law:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

As a fact of settled and accepted law the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on all manner of rights, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Consequently, there are in fact limits on the type of weapons you may have.

And because of your ignorance and stupidity you and other rightwing morons reflect poorly on those of us who own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and seek to defend the Second Amendment right.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

"*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms"
*
God/gods had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Try the Constitution's "founding fathers".

If we were made to need guns in addition to arms, God would have provided Adam a gun.

If man creates lethal weapons, he & family will die with lethal weapons.
A civilized society does not need lethal weapons for its normal citizens.
.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.
> 
> Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven


Another perfect example of a statistics of small numbers fallacy from the right.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

hangover said:


> God is positive energy....guns are negative energy that destroys....therefore you worship Satan.


Now that's a cute lie! Dumb. But cute.

Just curious - who granted you the power to deem guns as "negative energy"? I find them to be the third most power positive energy in the _world_. And so did someone a 1,000x's smart than you - Thomas Jefferson:

In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Firearms | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.
> ...


Ah! I see....so your logic is that so long as (and I quote) "a small number" of people die, then they _should_ die? The minority should have no right to protect themselves? CCJ "logic" at its finest folks!


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...


Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

The numbers aren't so "small" CCJ. What _is_ small is your mind! The way you intentionally avoid the facts and the truth in favor of your absurd ideology.

Gun-Wielding Man Tries Robbing Store in Broad Daylight, Gets Shot by Employee. Reactions From Fed-Up Residents Are Far From Sympathetic.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".
> ...


---
_"*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."_
.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Exactly....the right belongs to the people as you just pointed out in your FULL quote. You can't go back several sentence before the right and declare that is where the right belongs. The previous section was simply the why. And the _why_ (while important for sure in context), is largely irrelevant what it comes to the _what_. And the what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Sorry, but you lose. _Big_. Nice try though.


----------



## FJO (May 8, 2016)

Everyone has a right to bare arms! Ban long sleeve shirts!


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



I am sure. It clearly states "the *right* of the *people*". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

FJO said:


> Everyone has a right to bare arms! Ban long sleeve shirts!


If it were spelled the way you are spelling it then the CC definitely be unconstitutional since the word bare includes displaying in its definition. The word in the constitution is "bear" and that word does not distinguish between open carry or concealed carry. It is left to the State Militia regulators with the court's approval to determine.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


By the way - just out of curiosity - why do you _want_ people to be helpless victims? And why do you want to convince people that only the militia should be able to defend themselves?

By the way - a few days ago I created the National Rottweiler Militia (NRM). It's free to join, no dues at all, you are a member for life if you choose to be, and there are no requirements to attend meetings. Boom. Everyone in the U.S. now has a right to keep and bear arms. Everyone. And....I'm ensuring that it is "well regulated" so don't even attempt that nonsense. No where does it state that the state or the federal governments are in charge of the regulation.

Either way you lose, whether you accept the Constitution as you know it to be or whether you want to play some silly game and attempt to pervert what it says.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


---
Before the "why" & "what" is the *intent*  -- the "why" & "what" during their era.
.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Obviously you get really upset when I post facts which you cannot dispute. Watching you throw tantrums is amusing.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


Uh....no genius. Their intent was "the right of the *people*". Which is why they said "the right of the *people*".


----------



## FJO (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone has a right to bare arms! Ban long sleeve shirts!
> ...



I guess my - admittedly feeble - humor flew right by your overly serious head.
Smile!


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Before the "why" & "what" is the *intent* of the writers during their era.



By your "logic" (and man am I using that term lightly here) then, Congress is not permitted to create laws. At all. The Bill of Rights opens with:

"*Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion"

So if we apply your "logic" we read the first few words, intentionally _ignore_ the rest of the clause, and declare that Congress is not empowered to make a _single_ law. So tell me junior, who is going to make our laws now? And where in the Constitution is that other governing body empowered to do so?

_Stupid_.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

FJO said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > FJO said:
> ...


Sorry, my bad. That is funny.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> *The right of the people is clearly defined* as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.



Ah! You _just_ admitted it! They "why" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why the founders felt it was necessary that the *people* have the right to keep and bear arms. It only matters that they did feel it was necessary.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.



By your "logic" (and man am I using that term lightly here) then, Congress is not permitted to create laws. At all. The Bill of Rights opens with:

"*Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion"

So if we apply your "logic" we read the first few words, intentionally _ignore_ the rest of the clause, and declare that Congress is not empowered to make a _single_ law. So tell me junior, who is going to make our laws now? And where in the Constitution is that other governing body empowered to do so?

_Stupid_.


----------



## alpine (May 8, 2016)

SuperDemocrat said:


> The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?




So I can have one of these?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Every person 17 to 45 is a member of the militia there fore EVERY person 17 to 45 has the right to own possess and bear arms thanks for playing.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


---
The *intent* was to maintain "_*the security of a free state*" _and _"*A well regulated militia* being necessary" _
was how that intent was achieved during that era.
.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

I thank the Constitution and those who refuse to let others subvert it,


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> No need to thank 'God'. Humans are the source of vocabulary.




A secular humanist I see... Perhaps you might think of reading the Bible (The Tower of Babel). Humans are NOT the source of the vocabulary. Nice try, though.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


That is correct and that is why "well regulated" is the introduction to the Amendment is included. The State has the authority to impose regulations. As long as the regulations are followed every able bodied citizen is part of the militia and the right can not be infringed. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of whether a regulation is an infringement of not.
Not sure about the age limitations. Is that a SCOTUS ruling?


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.




I'll bet you a dollar and a quarter that if Hillary (the murderer) Clinton wins the election - within the bitchs' first term, there will be a movement to strike the second from the Constitution. Care to wager?


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> I thank the Constitution and those who refuse to let others subvert it,




Indeed. Our founders were absolute geniuses.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.
> 
> Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven



You have to have a basic understanding of the liberal mindset. To liberals, the word "freedom" is abhorent to them. They despise the word. Liberals are sheep, willing to say and do whatever they are told by their masters. They are followers - not leaders. They cower in shadows, only to emerge when the odds are in their favor. They are cowards.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

RandallFlagg said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...


---
Your wager is as worthless as your perceptions, or is it your brain's fault?
.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


The Supreme Court has ALREADY RULED and that ruling is that the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL Right not a collective right. Perhaps you should actually catch up with the times?


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




So, I take it that you are afraid to lose $1.25? You liberal sheep fool no one.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Couldn't agree more. However. The problem arises with the next two-three appointments to the SCOTUS. One thing about this bullshit "court" is that they change rulings at will - according to whom is sitting their fat asses on the bench at any given time. The Supremes, like every other "court" in the land legislates from the bench MORE than the Congress does.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

RandallFlagg said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...


---
Looks like it was your brain's fault.

Have you collected any dollars or quarters via this forum before?
.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


The security of a free state meant that the citizenry had the means to protect itself from a tyrannical government. The intent was made very clear in other writings by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms

The 2nd Amendment does not have a but or an except for anywhere in it. If you believe the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringe means it can then the only thing to do is get together with all of the other gun control wackadoodles and call for a constitutional amendment. I doubt you'll get many Representatives stupid enough to bring it up for a vote and you damn sure won't get many votes at the State level so shit out of luck doesn't quiet cover it.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Good Lord. A literalist as well.....


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




Exactly. The second was put there EXPRESSELY for the purpose of (1) Defense of ones property and family and (2) to be used to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Problem is? Liberals do NOT believe in personal defense and they abhore the idea of "standing up" to the government - the same central government that feeds them.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

RandallFlagg said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





RetiredGySgt said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


It does not convey that regulations or laws designed for and under the Militia standard can not be the same for individuals. The rulings support non-discrimination between a Militia person and a non-militia person. A person can reject being a Militia member due to the 1rst Amendment. Just because a person is a conscientious objector does not mean the person does not have a right to self-defense.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


Do you take God into court to defend your right?  No, you take a lawyer and the Constitution.  Your right to arms was granted by men, not your mythical God.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Yet another person who was able to save themselves and their family because the Constitution afforded them the right to do so.
> 
> Family of Four Awakened by Man Shattering Windows and Kicking at Their Front Door. So Dad Pulls Out His 9mm Handgun and Heads Toward the Trouble.


By the Constitution, not your God, Puddles.  Good, you're learning.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

hangover said:


> God is positive energy....guns are negative energy that destroys....therefore you worship Satan.




Guns in this country save far more lives than people using them illegally take.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> "*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms"
> *
> God/gods had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Try the Constitution's "founding fathers".
> 
> ...




the Jews and political opponents in Germany in the 1920s agreed with you completely....by 1939 they disagreed with you completely...as they were being loaded into train cars for the gas chambers.......


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > God is positive energy....guns are negative energy that destroys....therefore you worship Satan.
> ...


No one can prove anything of the kind but suicide kills twice as many as crime.  That we can prove.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Nope...been over and over this......the Founders knew exactly who they meant when the right was defined for the People, and not a militia.........it isn't the right of the militia to keep and bear arms they specifically said the right of the people.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...




Nope....40 years of research show that guns are used 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives.......

that is far more than 2 times the suicide rate......


----------



## Moonglow (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


What left? Left handed, left turns? Try to be specific, as far as I can tell as a man, women have had a war on men for many decades..They used to call it, _the battle of the sexes_....


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Exactly.  As has been stated exhaustively, the Bill of Rights is ALL about the rights of citizens.  Lol.


----------



## candycorn (May 8, 2016)

rott, losing the same argument on two threads


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Your numbers are crap.  Just don't bother.  What we know are deaths, and guns don't save lives, they take them.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



No, there are numerous studies that have calculated that guns do in fact help save lives. If you don't want a gun, it's simple. Don't own one.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
That decision can be turned any time and will rely on future Justice's agreeing with the Scalia opinion. That is a major reason the replacement of Scalia is being denied.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


The studies are crap.  Someone pulling out a gun might think they needed to but there is no way to know in most cases.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



They are not "crap."  They are legitimate studies that have been peer reviewed.  

Now, let me ask you, who do you think "laws" effect?  The law abiding or the criminals (who disregard "laws")?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Laws affect both, dummy.  That's why people who break them go to prison.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



No, criminals don't obey laws.  Lol.  Only law-abiding people obey the laws.  It's already illegal to kill someone with a gun (when it isn't in self defense).  If someone is going to kill someone, anti-gun legislation is not going to stop them.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Use logic here.  I see a big scary black man coming towards me late at night and I point a gun at him.  He, being sensible, runs away.  Was I in danger, did a gun save my life?  It's impossible to know.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



And how do you propose doing that?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Use logic here.  I see a big scary black man coming towards me late at night and I point a gun at him.  He, being sensible, runs away.  Was I in danger, did a gun save my life?  It's impossible to know.



I'd take my chances with the gun, thanks.  Lol.  Better safe than sorry.  Good motto to live by, if life is important to you.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Banning most guns, of course.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Use logic here.  I see a big scary black man coming towards me late at night and I point a gun at him.  He, being sensible, runs away.  Was I in danger, did a gun save my life?  It's impossible to know.
> ...


So, take your gun everywhere and point it at anyone who scares you.  That will make feel safe even when you mostly likely were never in danger.

To you that will feel like a gun saved your life, maybe a dozen times a day.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



That is going to move them underground.  How'd that work with drugs or alcohol?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Well, you cannot prove otherwise, that my life was not in danger.  Can you?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



If you don't want a gun, then don't own one.  You don't have any right to tell others that they cannot.  What makes you think you have that right?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Going underground would be just fine.  We have lots of prisons.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Pretty arrogant and bossy if you ask me.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



This doesn't even make sense.  For one thing, if you push guns into the illegal market, they would be twice as difficult to trace.  There would be no "background checks" or other such measures.  Your argument is weak sauce.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


It can't be proven either way, exactly my point.


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You have yet to make any points that make any sense whatsoever, especially to take away any one of our precious rights.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Anyone found with a gun and not allowed to would go break rocks for ten years.  They'll get the message in no time.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


---
Common sense; the people are restricted and regulated in the arms they are allowed to bear, no?

You cannot carry/store *plastic explosives* without gov (ATF) *regulation* ... to *maintain the security of the free state*.
Duh!
.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


The right to a gun is not precious, to any normal and sane person.  That would be freedom of speech, thought, religion, movement, etc., not weapons.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



That already happens.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Lol.  Do you live in this country?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



All of our rights are precious.  All of them need to be protected from traitors to the American people.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.


They are told to be paranoid, and already were in most cases.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



The right to protect myself, my children, my home against invaders, both foreign and domestic.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.
> ...



You just stated that was one of your goals.  Lol.  Cat is out of the bag!    That is why you people are so dishonest and cannot ever be taken seriously in the real world.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Dummy, I know this but that changes nothing.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Your constant resorting to name-calling just reveals what kind of a lowly person you really are.  

Do you live in the United States?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


It is my goal but it is not the goal of most.  I would like no guns.  That is rare, especially here in the Wild West of idiots like you.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Oh I get it.  You are a joker.  Lol.


----------



## Timmy (May 8, 2016)

No one is out to take your gun away .  Is it possible to talk gun control with freaks jumping too "u want to ban all guns !!! "


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Dummy is not a name in this case.  It is your mental ability, a highly limited one.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



So, do you live in the United States?  Are you a citizen of the United States of America?  Yes or no.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Timmy said:


> No one is out to take your gun away .  Is it possible to talk gun control with freaks jumping too "u want to ban all guns !!! "


Not no one, just very few, like me.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion.    You are the one getting all . . . crazy.  I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Yes, Dummy.


----------



## Timmy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



All those rights have limitations to them.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > No one is out to take your gun away .  Is it possible to talk gun control with freaks jumping too "u want to ban all guns !!! "
> ...



Well, thankfully, you are a nobody.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Guns are mostly unnecessary now.  Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy?  Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


And just who are you?

Again, think a bit before posting.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Yep.  And they can be done away with, if necessary.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I'm a person who believes in constitutional rights of the American people.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I guess the police don't need weapons anymore then.  They can just karate chop the bad guys.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


So do I, in general, but that still makes you a nobody.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Non-leathal weapons exist.  They work.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Nope, you do not.  You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons.  I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You are ridiculous.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I want to take away guns.  That's all.  There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Never going to happen here in America.  Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


So controlling bombs is okay but not guns?  Do we use bombs in war?  Do we use guns?  

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

I have been backpacking in National Parks and Forest for decades. Until Obama signed a law allowing for firearms in the National Parks and Forest, it was forbidden. People hiking and backpacking or camping in those places were not allowed to have firearms. It was a Federal offense. Now it isn't. Now it is OK. So, Obama has supported gun carry rights in America. You can go camping and carry your weapons of choice. 
So, there is an example of a pro-gun law Obama promoted. Does anyone have a good example of an anti-gun law he promoted or signed into law that would take away any of my gun rights?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.


----------



## BluesLegend (May 8, 2016)

Its front page news today, a 25 year old drug addict scumbag looking for a drug fix invades an elderly couple's home, stabs gramps and beats him with a crow bar so the 80 year old great grandmother shoots the worthless scum 3 times in the chest BOOM DEAD!!

By the way where are the drugs coming from? Yes from Mexico via illegals.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

BluesLegend said:


> Its front page news today, a 25 year old drug addict scumbag looking for a drug fix invades an elderly couple's home, stabs gramps and beats him with a crow bar so the 80 year old great grandmother shoots the worthless scum 3 times in the chest BOOM DEAD!!
> 
> By the way where are the drugs coming from? Yes from Mexico via illegals.



There are WAY too many incidents like this, where criminals invade a home and beat people to death.  Sad.


----------



## BluesLegend (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Its front page news today, a 25 year old drug addict scumbag looking for a drug fix invades an elderly couple's home, stabs gramps and beats him with a crow bar so the 80 year old great grandmother shoots the worthless scum 3 times in the chest BOOM DEAD!!
> ...



In my area the Pacific NW Mexican gangs have taken over the drug trade and pour METH into our states via illegal couriers, the drug just destroys people. Naturally I want to hurl when these filth liberal traitors yap about sanctuary cities and side with illegals. These meth dealing illegals bring their entire families up here, National Geographic found a bunch of them not 12 miles from my house.

Its long overdue that we cleaned up this mess, illegals go home. Washington establishment YOUR FIRED here's your pink slip we'll be in touch after the investigations to let you know if you are going to prison or not.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> rott, losing the same argument on two threads


candy....upset she's been defeated on her same insane argument in two different threads. She wants to disarm women so that they are vulnerable to attacks


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
> That decision can be turned any time and will rely on future Justice's agreeing with the Scalia opinion. That is a major reason the replacement of Scalia is being denied.



The fact that you even _think_ that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what the Constitution says and to create or alter law from the bench just shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.



In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.
> ...


Japan, few guns and very peaceful.  Iraq, many guns and no peace. 

Try again, Puddles.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > rott, losing the same argument on two threads
> ...



Democrats want to disarm everybody so they are vulnerable to attacks.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


But there is no “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Really?   What country do you live in?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Without a Supreme Court to be able to *interpret* it that way, you'd be fucked.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> I have been backpacking in National Parks and Forest for decades. Until Obama signed a law allowing for firearms in the National Parks and Forest, it was forbidden. People hiking and backpacking or camping in those places were not allowed to have firearms. It was a Federal offense. Now it isn't. Now it is OK. So, Obama has supported gun carry rights in America. You can go camping and carry your weapons of choice.
> So, there is an example of a pro-gun law Obama promoted. Does anyone have a good example of an anti-gun law he promoted or signed into law that would take away any of my gun rights?



He doesn't have the ability to thanks to our Constitution.  That may change if people are stupid enough to elect Hilarious.  If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Country? How about year?  I live in 2016, not 1816.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs.  If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place.  Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away.  They exist . . . period.  If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



So do I and we have some really nice guns available.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



That's due to culture and not the "tool".


----------



## there4eyeM (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.
> ...


Just look at Kent State.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Once banned the control takes over.  It won't be perfect but the prisons filling  up won't be a problem.  To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell the guns off to the armies of the world.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Good Lord, you are nuttier than squirrel poop.  Lol.  You are not from this country are you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


You mean like they do now? You are aware of course that your liberal judges do NOT in fact send criminals to jail for long over firearms possession?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Seriously, you need to work on your arguments as well as your piss poor presentation.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush.  You can have peace with or without guns.  That is what scares your ilk.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Yes, 2016, and in 2016, many Americans are armed and more interest in carrying firearms; particularly women.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


What were all those 'arms' negotiations between the S.U. and the U.S. involving nuclear (or is that nucular?) arms?
And weren't we told America needed 'the bomb' for defense? Was it really always for offense, as the S.U. maintained?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



This thread is about guns and weapons that citizens are "allowed" to own.  Keep on topic.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Iraq has never been peaceful.  Not for thousands of years.  It was, at best, "controlled" by a ruthless murderous and insane dictatorial regime.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But there is no “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_



So show us the restriction in the U.S. Constitution...  You can't. So shut up. You don't get to break the law just because you are scared of inanimate objects.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Your argument boils down to, I like guns, they make my pansy ass feel safe.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 8, 2016)

Arms are arms.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Great.  If you ever come across three or four guys ready to beat you up and take your money, throw rocks at them.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios.  You don't even HAVE an argument.  It is weak sauce, like you.    Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one.  You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them.  They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not.  That is how it goes in OUR country.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Country? How about year?  I live in 2016, not 1816.



Yeah...I also live in 2016, not 1816, so you need to shut the hell up right _now_. After all, the Constitution *never* granted you 1st Amendment rights over the internet.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Iraq under a dictator was very peaceful.  Dictatorships usually are.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> Arms are arms.



You are building a strawman argument.  Stick with the topic of the thread, which is not "bombs."


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



LOL One more example ^^^ of a member of the right crazy right wing working to discredit Democrats by believing he can convince women that the party which opposed the equal rights amendment really cares about the rights of women.  Which party passed the Lilly Ledbetter Law, and which opposed it?  Which Party will soon nominate the first women to be their standard bearer come November, and which party nominated a token Hockey Mom?  Which party has put forth nine women to represent them in the US Senate?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You're a pansy for wanting to protect your own life and perhaps your family?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Just like you claim no one calls for removing firearms all the time I claim no one calls for any firearm anywhere anytime.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



The MILLIONS of people who were executed under the leadership of Saddam Hussein would disagree.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


...and should logically have been disarmed, guns confiscated, (after the illegal U.S. invasion), the way Germans were after WWII.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Country? How about year?  I live in 2016, not 1816.
> ...


That you got right.  It doesn't.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Millions?  No.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


And most conservatives are liars, this post is one of many examples.

This also fails as a straw man fallacy, as democrats seek to do no such thing.

Indeed, not only is no one seeking to ‘disarm everybody,’ but the notion is ignorant idiocy, as any jurisdiction that enactes a measure ‘authoring’ citizens being ‘disarmed’ would be enjoined and invalidated by the courts as a violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

*Second Amendment*: there exists an individual right of citizens to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense.

*Fourth Amendment*: prohibiting government from the unwarranted search and seizure of private property, where a neutral magistrate would never issue a warrant authorizing government to search and seize firearms in violation of the Second Amendment.

*Fifth Amendment* – private property may not be taken absent due process and just compensation; the process of adjudicating each and every firearm taken and determining just compensation would be logistically far too burdensome to execute in a timely manner, rendering government in violation of the Fifth Amendment should it seek to ‘disarm everybody.’

It’s difficult to tell which is more pathetic: the propensity of most on the right to lie or the comprehensive ignorance of the law common to most conservatives.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



They were STILL finding mass graves when our troops were occupying Iraq.  

*Number of victims[edit]*
Estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[9][10] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[11][12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[13]

*Other atrocities[edit]*
Of nearly 2 million refugees created by the 1991 crackdown on dissent, it is estimated that 1,000 died every day for a period of months due to unsanitary and inhumane conditions.[14] The destruction of Shi'ite religious shrines by Hussein's regime has been called "comparable to the levelling of cities in the Second World War, and the damage to the shrines [of Hussein and Abbas] was more serious than that which had been done to many European cathedrals."[15]Methods of torture used by Hussein's regime included assault with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; electric shocks to the genitalia; scorched metal rods being forced into body orifices; the crushing of toes and removal of toenails; burning off limbs; lowering prisoners into vats of acid; poisoning with thallium; raping women in front of their family members; burning with cigarette butts; the crushing of bones; the amputation of ears, limbs, and tongues; and the gouging of eyes.[16] After the 1983-88 genocide, some 1 million Kurds were allowed to resettle in "model villages". According to a U.S. Senate staff report, these villages "were poorly constructed, had minimal sanitation and water, and provided few employment opportunities for the residents. Some, if not most, were surrounded by barbed wire, and Kurds could enter or leave only with difficulty."[17]


----------



## Camp (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > I have been backpacking in National Parks and Forest for decades. Until Obama signed a law allowing for firearms in the National Parks and Forest, it was forbidden. People hiking and backpacking or camping in those places were not allowed to have firearms. It was a Federal offense. Now it isn't. Now it is OK. So, Obama has supported gun carry rights in America. You can go camping and carry your weapons of choice.
> ...


I was just making the point that for me personally, and others who share my pastime, sport, leisure, whatever, my gun rights have been expanded under Obama. Perhaps someone else has had a different experience.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Obviously you never read the stories of what living in Iraq was like under Saddam.  

His demon son used to pick out girls at random, kill their boyfriend or husband, and take them to a place where they were repeatedly raped.  Then he would imprison them underground so they could never talk.  Saddam was known for doing things like busting into people homes he suspected had information he wanted, taking a baby out of his crib, and burning his eyes out with his cigar until the father started talking.  I'm also sure you didn't read any stories where he did use WMD"s against his foreign enemies.  

Yep, that Saddam was a real prince and things were so peaceful in Iraq.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You are afraid of guns, obviously.  Lol.  You are also in fear of a woman like me defending myself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Is THAT why until a Supreme Court decision YEARS after enactment Washington DC banned all private ownership? Or why in Chicago the same was true?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


No, but you don't need a gun for that, just like you don't need a nuclear or a biological weapon.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Banning guns will only accomplish one thing.  Disarming the law abiding portion of the population.  The criminals will still have their weapons of choice and be more "free" to obtain them than ever.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Then don't own a gun.  Simple.  Don't tell me what I do or do not need.  That is not for you to decide for another person.  Mind your business, busybody.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


A gun is not a defensive weapon.  It never was.

Go to a self defense class and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



That's for me to decide, thanks.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one.  You failed, again.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Cheat?  What do you mean by "cheat?"  Please explain.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


And the _Heller_ Court also reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, a fact far too many on the right try to ignore.

So many conservatives likewise need to catch up with the times.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I can legally own a gun.  You fail.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


So then wh don't you shut up? You just admitted to violating the law? Shut down your computer and don't you _dare_ share your opinions over it ever again.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Self defense isn't carrying a gun on you so you 'feel' safe, dummy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



And what if the "new" SC decides that firearms are not constitutionally protected for people not belonging to a militia?  That gives states the right to ban firearms because you have no constitutional right to them.  

No, the SC cannot make guns illegal or have them confiscated, but what they can do is not protect our rights which could be subject to liberal politicians who do want to take your guns away.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Yes it is.  According to the laws in my state, I can legally carry a gun for self defense.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the _Heller_ Court also reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, a fact far too many on the right try to ignore.
> 
> So many conservatives likewise need to catch up with the times.



As we've already endlessly established on USMB for you liberals, the Supreme Court has no power to decide what the U.S. Constitution means or to alter it in any way. Your inability to under stand that doesn't change it. Might I suggest a civics tutor for you?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Goodness, you get even more ridiculous with every post.  Seriously, you suck at this.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Puddles, you are a moron.  The right to do something and the ability to are two different things.  I can post here but I have no constitutional right to.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I'm willing to bet this jackass isn't even an American citizen.  Lol.  I hope our citizens are not that ignorant.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Take a class.  Be aware.  Skip the gun, you wouldn't know when to use it anyway.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Go to a self-defense what????


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Class.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.



You _are_ afraid of guns. If you weren't - you wouldn't be advocating outlawing and/or limiting them.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> A gun is not a defensive weapon.  It never was.
> 
> Go to a self defense and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.



Bwahahahahahaha!!! Then why does law enforcement carry guns? Because they are paid to kill people? Because law enforcement is _offensive_?!? 

What a _stupid_ thing to say....


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


No, it isn't actually.  Society sets the rules, not you.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You are the moron here, since we actually DO have a constitutional right to own and even carry weapons.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > A gun is not a defensive weapon.  It never was.
> ...


Law enforcement doesn't need guns, especially when no one has any.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



And the law states that I can legally own and carry a weapon.  Now what?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Oh, so go take a self-defense class. 

Let me tell you, I'm a 6'3" 240 lbs black belt, and I can tell you first hand there is no defense against somebody with a gun.  There are few moves you can do at close range, but extremely risky and in most cases, somebody holding a gun on you are more than an arms distance.  

Fact: the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


You lied, you claimed no one had ever banned firearm ownership and that it was not done. I proved you wrong, just like your claim no one is trying to ban them now.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Too bad you don't have any.    Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


You have a limited right, and that will go away eventually.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Really, so how are you going to make it so nobody has a gun?  Care to give us some examples?


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Nope, it won't.  Most Americans are FOR the 2nd amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


As with the Constitution itself, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And as the _Heller_ Court determined, the intent of the Founding Generation was to recognize an individual right to possess a firearm subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Consequently, current Second Amendment jurisprudence authorizes certain firearm regulatory measures reflecting the original understanding and intent of the Framers.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ...
> If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.


---
Let it be, let it be ...

I look forward to criminals & gun fanatics getting "screwed".

Let me make it clear; I support normal citizens being able to keep/bear normal arms, but the gun fanatics don't get my vote.
.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one.  You failed, again.



What are you taking about?!? Could you be _any_ dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.
> ...


I'm not afraid of them, they are for killing like bombs and tanks, which I also want controlled and banned, and not allowed for the average numbskull like you two.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases

Other recent data confirm this pattern. A 2013 Pew Research survey showed that protection is now the top reason gun owners offer for why they choose to own a gun (in 1999, hunting was the top reason). And among the public at large, the latest Gallup survey finds that 63% of Americans now say having a gun in the home makes it a safer place compared with 30% who say it makes a home more dangerous.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You are the numb skull in this conversation.  Lol.  You started off weak, now you have moved into batshit crazy territory.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one.  You failed, again.
> ...


Build a nuke or a biological weapon?  We have a nice cell for you to spend the rest of your life in.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one.  You failed, again.



Indisputable proof right there that liberals don't have a freaking clue what they are talking about. They just make stuff up all day long. What kind of an idiot pretends to be an authority on something they know _nothing_ about?!?

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



And why is that and who gets to decide who is a gun fanatic and who isn't?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Arms control is not crazy, it just makes gun lovers upset.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Tell us again how I can't "legally own a pipe bomb". Come on chief....*keep showing everyone how you make stuff up*.

By the way - it's 100% legal to build a nuclear weapon as well you _tool_. The problem is that some of the materials needed to build one are restricted and not available to average citizens.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



YOU are crazy, obviously.  You don't know anything about which you speak.  Lol.  

We have a right to carry and own weapons. Most Americans stand behind that right.  Guns are not going to disappear because you make some silly laws, and criminals will still have access to guns.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one.  You failed, again.
> ...


Keep your pipe bombs at home, like your guns.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.


---
Apparently, English is not your strong point.
*ARMS*:
_"weapons and ammunition; armaments."_
.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Who is "we?"


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Move the goalposts much???? Don't move the goalposts after the facts _prove_ you make stuff up. Be a man for once in your life and admit that you have no clue what you're talking about.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.
> ...



We already have laws in place regarding those types of "arms."  Thanks.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Sorry, Puddles, you are too insane to bother with if you believe that but it's nice to know you won't mind Muslim terrorists building nukes at home here.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

With the exception of a few loons, most of the anti-rights crowd are from other countries, they are not American citizens, and they don't understand the importance of our rights.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Holy smokes.  Lol.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Arms *control* is not crazy, it just makes gun lovers upset.



The fact that you feel _any_ need to exert control over others is the very definition of bat-shit crazy. The people who agree with you are people like Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. Not the type of people I want to stand next to.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
> ...


The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to determine what the Constitution means shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

And the notion that Supreme Court rulings manifest as ‘making laws from the bench’ is consistent with your overall ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Arms *control* is not crazy, it just makes gun lovers upset.
> ...



It's sheer fear and paranoia that motivates these people.  And the fact that they don't really have any idea what they are talking about.  Ignorance and stupidity basically.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



And the Supreme court has ruled.  People have a constitutional right to use guns as tools of self defense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You are aware, of course, that this is a ridiculous lie.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Keep your pipe bombs at home, like your guns.



Keep your opinions at home. The 1st Amendment does not extend to the internet. So shut the f*ck up, turn off your computer, and go do something constructive. You already admitted that _your_ 1st Amendment rights do not extend to the Constitution.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> And the Supreme court has ruled.  People have a constitutional right to use guns as tools of self defense.



And it wouldn't have mattered if they ruled against the 2nd Amendment anyway, because the U.S. Constitution trumps the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court only exists and derives its power from the U.S. Constitution (therefore, they cannot supersede it). Something so basic and simple, only a liberal would be baffled by it.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Plenty of people convicted of crimes involving guns don't serve the sentences they deserve.  It's because of liberal "bleeding hearts" for the wrong people that they are allowed out early to victimize again and again.  That's just one reason why we have such a huge problem with gang crime in our inner cities, like Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Sorry, Puddles, you are too insane to bother with if you believe that but it's nice to know you won't mind Muslim terrorists building nukes at home here.


Says the buffoon who just claimed it was "illegal" to build a pipe bomb at home...


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Plenty of people convicted of crimes involving guns don't serve the sentences they deserve.  It's because of liberal "bleeding hearts" for the wrong people that they are allowed out early to victimize again and again.  That's just one reason why we have such a huge problem with gang crime in our inner cities, like Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc., etc., etc.



Liberal "logic" - blame the inanimate object (of which they have a paralyzing fear), release the criminal maniac who lives to inflict pain and suffering on people.


----------



## Moonglow (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Yeah, it only ads 10 years to life on a sentence..


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

RandallFlagg said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


There are also a few qoutes from the founding Fathers about personal defence of ones home and family out there.  It is your right and duty to protect you and yours. The police no longer provent crimes so much as investigate the aftermath. 

I should really start myself a link list to all of the articles and qoutes. I know Liberals won't look them up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


And?

Otherwise this fails as a bandwagon fallacy.


----------



## Moonglow (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Plea bargaining and lawyers all play the same games..But it's not liberals...


----------



## Moonglow (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


A cop's job has never been to be the cavalry riding over the hill to save the day, they are simply a reactionary unit..


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


---
The people decide via their reps (this is a Republic), and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution with today's reality.

A gun fanatic could construct a fully automatic short rifle and use the deadliest bullets. My vote says that's *not OK *in my society. Go to an island for fanatics!
An arms fanatic may play with plastic explosives. Not in my neighborhood!
.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to determine what the Constitution means shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.
> 
> And the notion that Supreme Court rulings manifest as ‘making laws from the bench’ is consistent with your overall ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.



And if you actually got an adult to read the Constitution for you, you would see no where does it authorize the judicial branch to create "case law" and replace actual law with it.

And if you were still confused by the Constitution (as you clearly are), all you would have to do is read the original writings of our founders. They were very clear that they only one they wanted creating law was the large legislative body made up of hundreds of representatives because it was the voice of the people. They did not want an unelected oligarchy deciding for the American people.

It's a simple fact that you are ignorant of because you're too lazy to read the U.S. Constitution and the original writings of our founders.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Correct, "Your" vote.  

Others like Joe B would consider a fanatic a person that has over three different types of (legal) guns and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> The people decide via their reps (this is a Republic), and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution with today's reality.
> 
> A gun fanatic could construct a fully automatic short rifle and use the deadliest bullets. My vote says that's *not OK *in my society. Go to an island for fanatics!
> An arms fanatic may play with plastic explosives. Not in my neighborhood!



Exactly. And you were defeated by a large majority that voted *it was ok* in our society. The problem with liberals is that they are a bunch of immature, petulant children that can't accept that they lost.

The U.S. Constitution trumps your desires at this point. If the American people agree with your absurd and radical view, then they will amend the U.S. Constitution. Until that time, you're just rambling lunatic much like Ted Kaczynski.


----------



## PK1 (May 8, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


---
That's my point. The 2nd Amendment says we can keep/bear *arms*, but they can be *regulated*.
.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

PK1 said:


> A gun fanatic could construct a fully automatic short rifle and use the deadliest bullets. My vote says that's *not OK *in my society.



My vote says that *it is ok* in _my_ society. I won. You lost. More people voted like me than voted like you. Put your big boy pants on and deal with it.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Okay, bleeding heart "people" whose hearts bleed for the wrong people.  Better?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Otherwise this fails as a bandwagon fallacy.



You should know. After spending several years failing big time as a "bandwagon fallacy", you should be able to identify it better than anyone


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Wrong.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, liberals own guns for self-defense, and liberals correctly understand that government may enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > "*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms"
> ...


Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.

I wonder how many of them know how close we came to being the Kingdom of the United States after the Revolutionary War that's what a bunch of Military officers wanted. If they had won out it would have Been
King George I instead of President Washington.


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



And the title of the thread is? . . . .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Concealed Carry Among Women Up 'Nearly 62 Percent' in Washington State - Breitbart

Concealed carry among women increasing

More women carrying guns

Women-Only Firearm Training Courses Spike As They Buy Handguns In Record Numbers


----------



## ChrisL (May 8, 2016)

Well, I have to get ready to go out for dinner now!    It's been real . . . from some of us anyway.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


Everyone wonders if this sort of stupidity and ignorance are typical of most conservatives.

Your posts read like something written by a 12-year-old.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Wishing were so ain't going to make it that way.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.
> 
> I wonder how many of them know how close we came to being the Kingdom of the United States after the Revolutionary War that's what a bunch of Military officers wanted. If they had won out it would have Been
> King George I instead of President Washington.



It's funny you say that - I've had that argument with a good friend of mine for years. He's under this bizarre belief that the U.S. has this mystical, magical unicorn power which prevents a military coup (like Iraq did when Saddam Hussein took over) or deteriorate into civil conflict (even though we already had one of those).

It's really sad to see how liberals are just obedient little lapdogs, trained to obey an ideology at all costs. Their refusal to stop and learn anything (especially from history) is just _killing_ this country.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Everyone wonders if this sort of stupidity and ignorance are typical of most conservatives.
> 
> Your posts read like something written by a 12-year-old.



And yet it's the majority of society agreeing that you're the unchained lunatic over and over. So what does that tell you? You're in the extreme minority junior. Throw your tantrums all you want, they aren't going to change anything. They just show everyone that you are nothing more than an insolent child.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Says the person who has fallen on insults as a response. Why don't you tell me what is ignorant about my post. Its not the history I know that's true.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.
> ...


I'm not so worried about a military coup. The top Brass may try something but the lower ranks will see any order to take over the government as unlawful. maybe with foreign troops they could but I believe the majority of the armed services will tell them to go take a flying leap.  

Who really concerns me is the politicians that stay in power for decades and may not want to give it up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


No it isn't, we have had several threads now on career criminals arrested dozens of times on possession charges of firearms released with in months or not locked up at all.


----------



## candycorn (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Now you're using facts.  So unfair.  

The gun nut's only argument is that Americans are simply more homicidal than Japanese


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


We don't kill ourselves as much even with firearms as the Japanese do, is that significant?


----------



## Rozman (May 8, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



Oh yeah?


*Chelsea Clinton: Scalia’s Out of the Way, so now we can gut the Second Amendment*......


Chelsea Clinton: Post-Scalia Supreme Court will be open to gun control


Watch out folks...
We may be looking at the first 
Father
Mother 
Daughter 

President of the US....

I think Chelsea might be more ambitious then her Mama.....
I'm sure she will spend her life from here on out in Politics...
I don't think she will get a real job anywhere.Government service is for her.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



And your argument is we are only so homicidal because we have guns?  If we didn't have guns, there would be no murders?  

The two largest mass murders in this country in our lifetime were the OKC bombing and 911.  Neither used one firearm.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Yes, it is a ridiculous lie, in addition to being a red herring fallacy.

Judges sentence those convicted of any crime in accordance with state sentencing guidelines and policy – whether a judge is ‘liberal’ or not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2016)

Rozman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...


This fails as both a hasty generalization fallacy and slippery slope fallacy.

And yeah, as already correctly noted: the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere – to argue otherwise is delusional paranoia and ridiculous partisan demagoguery.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


We don't live in Japan or Iraq junior. Try again. How sad is it that you have to point to nations literally all the way across the world to make your case for policy you want here in the U.S.

By the way - if guns are too scary for you and Japan is so wonderful - go live there.

Lastly, why are you even here? You already admitted that the 1st Amendment rights to not extend to the internet (that were your own words). Our founders could have never anticipated computers, much less an interconnected linking of devices across the world. That was not their intent when they created the 1st Amendment. So shut the f' up, turn your computer off, and sit there quietly.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Vintage Candy....pointing to Japan and Iraq as reasons why she needs *control* over other people in America. How about we focus on the United States, U.S. crime statistics, U.S. gun statistics, etc. to form U.S. opinions about U.S. policy in the U.S.? Oh wait....that's right....because all of it proves you're just flat wrong and that really pisses you off for some reason.

P.S. No matter what the U.S. statistics say (and they all say you're dead wrong) - it doesn't matter anyway. I have a Constitutional right to my arsenal and there is _nothing_ you can do about it.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And yeah, as already correctly noted: the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere – to argue otherwise is delusional paranoia and ridiculous partisan demagoguery.



Tell that to New Yorkers genius....

Nobody knows how to deal _out_ of facts like CCJ.


----------



## MaryL (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


Oh come on now. I rarely hear about people using guns to defend themselves, it's a rare occasion. Most of the time it's people *with guns* abusing the second amendment and harming, harassing and contributing to crime and contributing to the climate of fear in America.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


You're kidding, right? Clearly you skipped this entire thread. It's something that saves lives damn near every day in America.

The reason you "rarely hear about" it is because you refuse to turn of MSNBC and other liberal propaganda channels. Start at the beginning of this thread and just read all of the TRUE stories I've posed from just the past few days.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Japan and Iraq completely destroy what you believe.  Suck it, Puddles.

And the founders didn't anticipate the guns you love so suck that as well.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


If you think there is nothing that can be done why are you so paranoid?  Must be because, that isn't actually true.

Prove, in court, that you are a nut and goodbye gun rights for you, Puddles.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Aren't you the sharp one.... 

It's your side that always uses the absurd excuse of "the founders didn't anticipate the guns that would be available" so I was mocking you with the internet stuff _genius_.

Now, as far as Japan and Iraq, they prove _nothing_. Absolutely nothing. For starters, you're too stupid to realize that Saddam Hussein disarmed the entire population when he came into power in the mide-1970's, so they only people that have firearms there are the terrorists. And that is exactly what you are trying to arrange here in America (after acknowledge how bad it is there). Proving how stupid you are yet again.

Secondly, it also proves nothing because we don't live in Japan and Iraq (it's laughable that I have to explain that to you). In the U.S., wherever guns are banned (public schools, college, some movie theaters, etc.) we see horrific mass murders. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, Police Stations, NRA meetings, etc.) we never see a single shooting. Ever. Once again, you lose stupid.

So that's twice now that we've proven that you make shit up. The first time when you said it was "illegal" for people to build "pipe bombs" and the second time when you claimed that Iraq was "full" of guns. 

No wonder you're so stupid on this issue. You don't have _any _facts straight.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Japan, few guns and peaceful.  Iraq, many guns and a death zone.  You lose, Puddles.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I'm not "paranoid". You libtards have been trying to usurp the Constitution for decades. On some occasions you've been successful. On others, you've been embarrassed when the American people put their foot down.

And trust me - you're proving that _you_ are the "nut". Some who is "insane" is someone who can't grasp reality. You've demonstrated that on multiple occasions now when you've stated that it is "illegal" to build pipe bombs and when you said Iraq was "full" of guns (when in fact, Iraq is devoid of guns outside of the terrorists)


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Iraq....no guns (other than terrorists), extremely violent. How embarrassing that you continue to exhibit your remarkable ignorance on the facts over and over and over. If you weren't a libtard, you'd actually being feeling tremendous shame right now.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Guns in Iraq — Firearms, gun law and gun control

34 of every 100 people are terrorists, Puddles?  Try again.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



We don't live in Japan and Iraq (it's laughable that I have to explain that to you). In the U.S., wherever guns are banned (public schools, college, some movie theaters, etc.) we see horrific mass murders. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, Police Stations, NRA meetings, etc.) we never see a single shooting. Ever. Once again, you lose _stupid_.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Pretty much. The country has been invaded by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and their enemy Iran. But I wouldn't expect you to be aware of reality based on your previous posts.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Guns in Iraq — Firearms, gun law and gun control
> 
> 34 of every 100 people are terrorists, Puddles?  Try again,



Jack-dressing-like-Jill "logic". I have to point to Iraq for reasons why I want to ban guns in the U.S. 

Um...why can't you point to the U.S. for reasons why you want to ban guns:

Jack-dressing-like-Jill: "Oh....because that proves me wrong. I have to point to nation all the way on the other side of the world, which doesn't have U.S. laws, and then lie about that nation to make some form of an argument".


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Many guns, no peace.  Few guns, much peace.  You lose, Puddles.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Guns in Iraq — Firearms, gun law and gun control
> ...


You said guns equal peace.  Wrong.


----------



## candycorn (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Now compare that to America: full of guns and the most gun deaths of any advanced society on earth.  

Obviously if guns made one safer, we'd have almost no gun deaths.  Instead we have, by far, the most of any of our peers.  

Obviously, more guns only results in more gun deaths; nothing else.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Sorry sweetie....you got beat (and you know it). You have to go all the way around the world and lie about what is going on there (just like lying about pipe bombs) because you've been so throughly beaten here today.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Now compare that to America: full of guns and the most gun deaths of any advanced society on earth.
> 
> Obviously if guns made one safer, we'd have almost no gun deaths.  Instead we have, by far, the most of any of our peers.
> 
> Obviously, more guns only results in more gun deaths; nothing else.



Liberal "logic" at its finest. Ban guns, when people die *where guns are banned*, blame it on guns 

It only happens where guns are banned. And you know it too....which is why you get so upset


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


They do. Tell me junior - how many mass shootings have we experienced in the White House? The place is packed with hundreds of people with access to thousands of fully automatic weapons.

I'm waiting.....


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


I didn't lie about anything.  I showed you a peaceful nation with few guns.  That ruins your entire argument for why you need guns, and that guns bring about peace.  They don't.

Peace can be had with or without guns.  You're screwed, Puddles.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Now compare that to America: full of guns and the most gun deaths of any advanced society on earth.
> 
> Obviously if guns made one safer, we'd have almost no gun deaths.  Instead we have, by far, the most of any of our peers.
> 
> Obviously, more guns only results in more gun deaths; nothing else.



Hey sweetie....your position is that "only the militia have a right to firearms". Well, city police are not part of a militia. County sheriffs are not part of a militia. Federal agents (FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshall's) are not part of a militia.

As usual, someone didn't think her position through very well....


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> I didn't lie about anything.  I showed you a peaceful nation with few guns.  That ruins your entire argument for why you need guns, and that guns bring about peace.  They don't.
> 
> Peace can be had with or without guns.  You're screwed, Puddles.



You've been lying the entire time. You said that it was "illegal" to build pipe bombs. I proved to you that it wasn't. Now, you're lying about Iraq.

And the most comical part is that we don't live in Iraq. So why do you need to point to Iraq for forming policy in America? Oh wait....that's right....because the facts in America have proven you to be a moron.

If you're so afraid of guns little boy, why not move to Japan? It sounds like you really like it. What is the problem?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases?  How about at gun ranges?  How about street gangs, where they all have guns?

No guns, no mass shootings.  Few guns in Japan, and good luck finding a mass shooting.  The whole country is a gun-free zone to you.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't lie about anything.  I showed you a peaceful nation with few guns.  That ruins your entire argument for why you need guns, and that guns bring about peace.  They don't.
> ...


I don't fear guns, but you fear Muslims with guns, nukes, planes, sharpened sticks, etc.  Fear is not the reason I want weapons banned.  Call me, Pro-life.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases?



J4J....you are _truly_ the gift that keeps on giving. 

I don't know whether to answer this one or let it sit out there for a while for everyone to enjoy and then give someone else the pleasure to enlighten you.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Eat it, Puddles.

And, homemade explosives, not pipe-bombs.  Please, make some and then show them off to the FBI?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases?
> ...


Yes, we all know the military likes gun control.  And because they have it, there are very few mass shootings but even with all their guns, and all the people able to use them, you only need  one nut with a gun for all hell to break loose.

The solution?  No guns.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Folks....think about this one. Really think about it. And then enjoy the fits of laughter...


*Libtard: "We need to lower the speed limit on the highways from 60mph to 35mph"*
Rational Person: "Um....._why_?"
*Libtard: "Because there have been over 90,000 deaths on the highway in Iraq already in 2016"*
Rational Person: "But...but.....we don't live in Iraq"
*Libtard: "So? I want the speed limit lowered and this makes my case"*
Rational Person: "But...but.....we don't live in Iraq. There have only been 12 deaths on highways in America in 2016"
*Libtard: "Yes...but whatever happens in Iraq is certain to come here eventually"*
Rational Person: "It is? Why? Based on what?"
*Libtard: "Studies have proven it"*
Rational Person: "What studies?"
*Libtard: "FUCK YOU, you racist, homophobic, bigoted asshole scum bag!!!! I want the speed limit lowered and Iraq proves why I'm right"*
Rational Person: "But...but.....we don't live in Iraq"


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



No, there are guns in Japan, it's just that you have to get a permit to buy one with heavy government oversight, but there are guns.  

It's the people that are different--not the guns.  You libs don't seem to understand that.  Japan is nearly a single culture where ours is multi-cultured.  Some of our cultures are much more violent than others.  

We had a so-called assault weapons ban.  Didn't show any positive results.  Australia instituted their gun ban, it didn't do any good and even increased firearm deaths for a while. Same with Great Britain.  But guess what?  Those places never had a serious violence problem in the first place.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Few guns, much peace.  Puddles loses.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> View attachment 74199 Eat it, Puddles.


So you asked your mom to send you this text and you think that means something?!? 

Let's recap again....

*“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said*.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



So can you explain why our gun murders and violent crime in general have been on the decrease since the 90's?  

Since the 90's, more and more states adopted CCW laws.  Not only that, but like my state, have made the laws favor the victim instead of the attacker.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Your pitiful "Jedi mind trick" isn't working. No matter how many times you tell this lie, everyone can see me _owning_ you in these posts.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Folks....think about this one. Really think about it. And then enjoy the fits of laughter...
> 
> 
> *Libtard: "We need to lower the speed limit on the highways from 60mph to 35mph"*
> ...


Okay, from now on we will only discuss things in America?  Gun deaths?  Too high.  Muslims terrorism?  Hardly any.  Nukes in Iran?  Israeli deaths?  None of your business so never comment on anything but America.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Well we have places in the US where there are not few guns, but no guns.  They are called Gun Free Zones, and that's usually where mass murder takes place in this country.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 8, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



  And there lies the problem...it's stuck in the musket years.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


You said guns equal peace and I proved you wrong, dead wrong.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Then explain mass shootings where guns are?  There should be zero, right?

And don't forget this, no guns no mass shootings, or any shootings at all.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



No guns in Iraq is why ISIS was able to walk in there, take over the place, and torture people to death by the hundreds.  Nobody was able to defend themselves.  

ISIS hates us too.  Gee, why don't they come here and try to do the same thing?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Folks....think about this one. Really think about it. And then enjoy the fits of laughter...
> ...



No. All I'm saying is that if you're going to make a case for policy in the U.S., it has to be based on what's happening in the U.S. It can't be based on what's happening in Israel. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



There are very few and far between.  Most all of mass shootings take place in gun free zones: schools, military bases, movie theaters, churches, those places.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


How is 34 guns per 100 persons , just among the civilian population, no guns?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Then explain mass shootings where guns are?  There should be zero, right?
> 
> And don't forget this, no guns no mass shootings, or any shootings at all.



There are *none*. _Ever_. Show me one. I dare you....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Yes, one-third of the population, against a fully armed blood thirsty religious group.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Where is the call to ban knives liberals? Can anyone deny this was a senseless death and rather horrific for all parties involved?

College Freshman Stabbed to Death After Seeing Three Young Women Being Groped and Stepping in to Help


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


You mean, places where people go in large numbers?

How can there be a mass shooting if guns protect against them and even if true, when there are no guns there will be no shootings, right?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Where is the call to ban knives liberals? Can anyone deny this was a senseless death and rather horrific for all parties involved?
> 
> College Freshman Stabbed to Death After Seeing Three Young Women Being Groped and Stepping in to Help


Knives weren't invented to kill people cheap and easily.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


They had far more guns than the terrorists so, why no peace?  I guess guns don't equal peace.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Then explain mass shootings where guns are?  There should be zero, right?
> ...


How about two guys killed at a gun range?  Let's start with that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



Would you like me to post some of those stories about people defending themselves with firearms?  

Remember that these stories are local so you don't hear of them on a national level.  They are out there if you care to look because Google is your friend.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And yeah, as already correctly noted: the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere – to argue otherwise is delusional paranoia and ridiculous partisan demagoguery.



Bwahahahahahahahahah....I'm not sure there has _ever_ been anyone easier to prove as a liar as 'ole CCJ

*Connecticut Governor to Sign Gun Confiscation Bill*

Connecticut Governor to Sign Gun Confiscation Bill — Here Are the Key Details


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


First, I see no link (so you might be making this up). Second - two people is *not* a "mass shooting".

So let's try again. And this time _please_ adhere to the rules (must be a MASS shooting and must be where guns are abundant).


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Kooks look for places to carry out their mass shootings.  They don't want any resistance, so they choose places where law abiding citizens will not be armed.  Then they can carry out their craziness.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




We have had quite a few on military bases....all in locations where the soldiers were unarmed.

Guns in Japan are used when their criminals need them......they have had wars between


Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




The shootings in military bases did not occur where there were armed soldiers......the Fort hood shooters targeted areas where guns were not allowed....

Japan....the only people who have access to guns are their criminals and their cops.....the Yakuza are more interested in making money that killing each other over insults on facebook...but when they decide to start killing each other, they get guns and grenades to do it....they had a gang war in 2006 that they nicknamed the season of the pineapple because of all the grenades being thrown....

Crime in Japan is all low......they are a law abiding, conformist people.......you could give every Japanese citizen a gun and their gun crime rate would stay the same....

Did you know that after they confiscated guns in Britain...their gun crime rate stayed the same....after an initial spike.....they achieved nothing by confiscating their guns......their criminals still get guns...normal, law abiding people who don't use guns to commit crimes can't get guns.....

Why is their gun murder rate so low...their culture...their criminals do not commit murder as often as ours do...it has nothing to do with access to guns....

You know very little about guns.....you should do some actual research before you post...the anti gunners...they are lying to you.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the call to ban knives liberals? Can anyone deny this was a senseless death and rather horrific for all parties involved?
> ...


What kind of "logic" is _that_? You don't care if people die so long as the tool of death wasn't "invented to kill people cheap and easy"? Boy...aren't you one of the great humanitarians of all time?

I think this unequivocally proves you are not "pro-life" as you claimed. You could care less about life. This is all about you being afraid of guns (and I'm not making fun of you - everyone has something they are afraid of).


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Do you understand the term fully armed?  This is not to mention that those ISIS people had military grade weapons to boot--not revolvers.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Wow...you have no idea what you are talking about....


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Gun range shootings.  Should be the safest place in the world, right?

Shooting at Vermont Gun Range Exposes Safety Loophole


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


I have already proven that places with many guns are not peaceful, while places with few guns are.  Catch up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Where the hell you been Guy, we were waiting for you.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Not my numbers......40 years of research, mainly by anti gun researchers.....from different research fields, both private and government sponsored......just for you...

....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the  links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

*Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--*------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

*DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)*

*Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."*

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
*If you take  the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....*


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases?



So getting back to this little gem. Thanks to an irrational Democrat (Bill Clinton), guns were _banned_ on military bases starting in the 1990's and are locked away in the armory.

Yep....only a liberal could ban our military from guns. SMH


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Exactly why there should be no guns.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Wrong......most of the countries with higher gun murder rates than we have have absolute gun control for law abiding civilians.......we rank about 111 for murder....that makes 110 higher than us....and they all have strict gun control....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Right, in NY that has some of the toughest restrictions on firearms in the country.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases?
> ...


A total lie.
Jeb Bush says a law passed under Bill Clinton banned guns at military recruiting offices


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



That's the point: there will never be No Guns!!!!  

Yes, you can make laws to take them away from law abiding citizens, but you can't make laws to take them away from the criminals, because criminals are people that don't abide to laws.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Camp said:


> Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.




Because obama and now hilary are packing the courts with anti gun judges....that a judge allowed the Sandy Hook law suit to go forward, with an actual law in place stating that it can't, shows that anti gun judges are a real danger.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




As does the 2nd.....you can't use a gun to commit a crime...if you are a felon you can't own a gun....those are actual limitations.....the rest are just reasons to get rid of more guns.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Tell that to the Mexican citzens who are being murdered by their government working with the drug cartels.....or the people in Detroit.......


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Laws will just be the start.  And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Lots of guns so they should be very peaceful, right?


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Wrong....Mexican Citizens have the right to guns but the government....following morons like you, prevents them from actually owning guns.......so only the drug cartels and their government allies have guns....and they are dying in their thousands each year...and the cartels have brought back ovens to burn the remains of their victims...their unarmed victims.....


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

For people who don't think gun control is possible here, you guys sure piss yourselves like schoolgirls.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Yes they did. They already had weapons that fired multiple rounds per second look up the Puckle Gun it was the first weapon to be refereed to as a machine gun. Patented in 1718. Regardless The Constitution says Right to bear arms. It doesn't say right to bear single shot, flint lock, smooth bore musket. .


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> For people who don't think gun control is possible here, you guys sure piss yourselves like schoolgirls.




The price of freedom is eternal vigilance....and we have a lot of experience with gun grabbers...give them one thing...and they use it to ban and confiscate as much as they can....there is no reasoning with you.....

So...from our end...we have all the gun laws we need to keep criminals locked up.......so not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment will be surrendered to you anti-gun nuts....


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Can you own a nuke, yes or no?  It's an arm, right?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > For people who don't think gun control is possible here, you guys sure piss yourselves like schoolgirls.
> ...


Japan is free.  You don't need guns for that.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Now your just pulling words out of your fourth point of contact.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

What is is with you anti gunners.....as I posted in another thread...you are dim bulbs.......the facts, the truth and the reality do not change your minds.....so if the facts about guns in this country show you are completely wrong....and the reality shows you are completely wrong....and you refuse to accept them....

F**k you......we know you are going to do everything in your power to confiscate and ban as many guns as you can get your hands on....so no more compromise....no more treating you as if you are honest brokers in this debate....you are snakes...you can't be trusted...you are irrational and phobic about guns.....

We will see you in court and the ballot box twits....


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...




Jesus. No matter how hard you try, you STILL show yourself to be a fucking idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Japan is not free....the police have vast powers and their judicial system has an over 95% conviction rate.....not a free people....

You really are talking out of your ass....


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Again....completely nonsensical. That was not a "mass shooting". It was _one_ person. Why do you feel the need to lie in each post?


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




here is a look at gun free Japan...all the stories are linked.....

Gangs buying up guns and hitmen.....2015

Notice

By proposing high pay, the recruiters are trying to encourage the gang warfare by hinting that those who carry out the first hits will be paid more,” the source said.

A former high-ranking gang member living in the Kanto region said he began receiving calls asking about the availability of loaded guns from around late August, when the Yamaguchi-gumi split came to light.

The calls, eight in total, to the former gangster’s mobile phone continued into September.

Without saying who made the calls, the former gangster said the requests likely came from both sides involved in the Yamaguchi-gumi breakup.

The large number of intermediaries involved in supplying guns made it difficult to pinpoint who was actually going on the shopping spree, the former mobster said.


-----------------
By Benjamin David Baker
November 20, 2015

Japan Faces a Possible Mob War After Yakuza Gang Fractures

However, few things are more dangerous than when mob families go to war.

This fear seems to have been vindicated. According to the _Asahi Shimbun__, _both the Yamaguchi-gumi and the thirteen splinter groups have been busy buying up weapons and lining up hitmen. The first shots in this mob war might have already been fired outside a hot spring facility in Iida, Nagano Prefecture. The 43-year-old man who was shot and killed outside a bathhouse on October 6 wanted to leave a Yamaguchi-gumi affiliate and join the newly formed rival organization consisting of the rebel gangs.

In what might be retaliation for this murder, a boss in the original Yamaguchi-gumi was killed on Sunday. Tatsuyuki Hishida was found tied up in his apartment after being bludgeoned to death. Police report that the killing was most likely in response to the Yamaguchi-gumi’s split.

The Japanese government has good reason to fear a gang war. Between 1985 and 1987, 25 Yakuza members were killedand around 70 were injured in a feud involving affiliated rival gangs. That bloodshed was triggered in part over disagreement over who should become the head of the Yamaguchi-gumi. A few years ago, another war broke out between two rival gangs on the southern island of Kyushu, in which mobsters attacked each other with machine guns and grenades.






-------------
The Great Japanese Gang Wars

The season for pineapples (yakuza slang for hand grenades) may finally be over. Jake Adelstein and Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky on the bloody, seven-year battle between the Dojin-kai and the Seido-kai.


*In Southern Japan, the brutal pineapple season may finally be over; pineapple is yakuza slang for “hand grenade”—one of the many weapons utilized in a seven-year gang war between the Dojin-kai (1,000 members) and the splinter group the Kyushu Seido-kei (500 members). *

It’s a gang war in which there have been over 45 violent incidents, including bombings, shots exchanged during high-speed car chases, and 14 deaths. At least seven deaths, including one civilian's, were from gunfire; a phenomenally high figure when you consider the number of gun deaths for all of Japan in 2011 was eight people. (Japan has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world.) 

On June 11, senior members of the Dojin-kai and the Kyushu Seido-kai (a.k.a. Seido-kai) visited the Fukuoka Police Kurume Police Station with an official announcement that they were ending the conflict. TheSeido-kai brought a virtual white flag, a notification of their dissolution (解散届け), in which they wrote, “For a long time we have made everyone ill at ease, disturbed people, and been a nuisance to society. We have decided our breakup is the only way to restore peace.” The Dojin-kai in turn proclaimed, “Since the Seido-kai is dissolved, this situation is over and we apologize to people and the authorities for the anxiety we have caused.”
--------------------

Handouts for Hand Grenades: Yakuza Gang War Leads to an Explosive Bounty

TOKYO -- Japan’s Fukuoka Prefecture Police have become the first in Japan to offer cash rewards to anyone who reports finding a hand grenade (or "pineapples" in yakuza slang) starting today, April 2. A long-running gang war in the prefecture has raised public fear in the area, *and the handy hand-grenade has increasingly become the weapon of choice amongst rival gang members. *As Japan has put into place increasingly harsher laws regulating the actions of the Japanese mafia, aka the yakuza, forcing many out of business--the remaining thugs are fighting viciously over what's left of the pie

*When gang members aren't lobbing grenades or shooting at each other, they are shooting at the offices of companies trying to cut organized crime Last year, on Nov. 26, Toshihiro Uchino, the 72-year-old president of Hakushin Construction --which was trying to cut ties to local gangs---was shot to death outside his home in Kitakyushu.*


The most violent of the groups and considered the primary user of hand grenades is the Kyushu Seidokai. The Kyushu Seidokai has expanded into Tokyo, setting up several front companies, and joined forces with Tadamasa Goto, a former Yamaguchi-gumi boss turned Buddhist priest, who has now re-emerged as a powerful player in Japan's underworld. Tokyo Police are also worried that "pineapples" may be thrown around the metropolis in the near future. "A coalition between Goto and the Kyushu Seido-kai doesn't bode well for the public safety," said a detective who works organized crime. "We’re not excited about the possibility of yakuza lobbing grenades into Tokyo offices and homes."
--------

Japan braces for violence among 'yakuza' crime gangs

TOKYO — Japan is bracing for war.

Not with other countries, but with the nation's notorious gangsters.

A 43-year-old man was gunned down in the parking lot of a hot springs resort in western Japan earlier this month in what authorities say they fear could be the start of a deadly war among the nation's largest organized crime gangs, known collectively as the _yakuza_.

The powerful Yamaguchi-gumi crime syndicate, which marked its 100th anniversary this year, split into two rival groups in September. Police arrested a member of the Yamaguchi-gumi in the hot springs shooting and identified the victim as a member of the breakaway group.

Analysts said the rupture was due to long-running disputes over succession plans and high fees that member groups were required to pay Yamaguchi-gumi leaders.


-------

When you confiscate and ban guns.......only the criminals and cops will have guns...as the above links show....


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Well, let's be real here. America has lost  many of its freedoms too. Usually at the hand of cowardly liberals. And not to dismiss republicans, the "Patriot Act"'is anything but....


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




It isn't a need as it is a part of their DNA.....the left cannot tell the truth....they just are physically incapable of it.......we have seen it over and over.....we provide facts...and down the road they lie and pretend they never saw them....and lie about guns some more........

If they don't lie, they can't pass gun control laws.....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> For people who don't think gun control is possible here, you guys sure piss yourselves like schoolgirls.



No, we just are rational about it.  You can't control guns, and if you think you can, tell us how? 

If you say create more laws, then please explain to us how our recreational drug laws are doing these days.  Because heroin has been illegal as long as I've been on this planet, and yet, we have more heroin overdoses than ever before in this country.  In fact, the US has the highest percentage of her people locked up behind bars compared to any other industrialized country in the world, and most of that is due to drugs.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


The worst weapon for personal defense. You can't target shoot with a nuke, sure as hell can't hunt with one, and the radiation a damaged one puts out will make you have a bad day.  Liberals always pull that nuke shit out of their asses in a last ditch effort to win an argument.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Laws will just be the start.  And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.



Well, I know you liberals _hate_ logic, but can we try it here anyway?

Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.
So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

I just saw an article....the Japanese Yakuza are ramping up for their next gang war......the article was from March 20, 2016......


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


It's an arm, not around 200 years.  Should you be able to own one, yes or no?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Can you own a nuke, yes or no?  It's an arm, right?



According to the U.S. Constitution? _Absolutely_. Why is it ok for the people who answer to _me_ to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?


----------



## 2aguy (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Did you change your name from Brain357?.....you post the same stupidity he does....


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Laws will just be the start.  And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.
> ...


When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed.  They will be collected and destroyed.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Never heard of him.


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



Interestingly, it appears Hilary will be the one to strip them of that right.


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



Two words:

SCOTUS stooges


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Can you own a nuke, yes or no?  It's an arm, right?
> ...


Nukes are for nations, not persons.  And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron.  I'm done responding to you.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Can you own a nuke, yes or no?  It's an arm, right?



So we've already established Constitutionally that I have an absolute right to own nuclear weapons. What is your great concern about _that_ now? What aren't you afraid of other people owning?

A nuclear weapon is going to cost _millions_ of dollars just for a single device. That's going to ellinate 99.999% of the population right there (who the frick is going to spend 50% to 100% of their income to buy a weapon?).

Of that 00.001% that are left, how many have _any_ desire to own a nuclear weapon? I'm betting Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Larry Ellison have no desire.

So now you're down to basically one person in America. They will have to adhere to all regulations regarding handling and storing nuclear materials. On top of that, they will need to find several people willing to take responsibility for nuclear launch codes (even the U.S. President himself can't launch a nuclear weapon).
So now that I've proven your "concerns" are remarkably nonsensical - is your mind finally at ease?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Boom! I rest my case. Thank you.

By the way, exactly where do you believe you derive the power to decide that "nukes are for nations, not for individuals" _and_ that "even nations shouldn't have them".

Your arrogance is remarkable (though sadly typical of liberals). You've appointed yourself the ultimate arbiter of all things. You decide for all of humanity that no nation should own a nuke in your own mind. Unbelievable.


----------



## OKTexas (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.
> 
> Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven



That's how you rehabilitate a criminal. Zero recidivism.


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Votto said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Far more.  Iran is sane.  Pissed, but sane.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Can you go through the dynamics for us please? 

The closest you can come to outlawing firearms is for the new SC court (If Hillary wins) to say that firearm ownership is no longer protected by the Constitution.  

What that means is cities and states across the country (more likely liberal) could create laws against ownership or carrying of a firearm.  That does not mean that conservative states have to do the same.  In fact, conservative states can make guns even more available and easier to get a carry permit than ever. 

On a national level, any President wanting to outlaw guns (or confiscate them) would have to get full approval by a majority of Congress and Senate.  That's never going to happen..  
And even if Democrats were able to pull that off, it would be the end of their leadership for decades in the White House and both Congress and Senate.  

But keep dreaming.......we all have dreams you know.


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



So the same people that say that the Holocaust never happened and shout death to Israel and the US everyday you trust more than posters here?

Duly noted.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Votto said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Words, words, words.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Flying was once a dream, walking on the moon, cars that drive themselves.  Time is on my side.


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Words, words, words....................mean things.

Unless you are Hillary Clinton.  If you are Hillary Clinton, "What does it matter?"


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Legalized pot is great, eh?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Votto said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


An idea whose time has come, like gay marriage.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Votto said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Words in politics or anger aren't worth much.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded




Then again how many people have been killed because of guns? 

Yeah, the US has a higher murder rate than any other first world country. Yes, guns in the US kill more people than guns in any other first world country.

Maybe if there were a God to be thanked, it would be because he'd kept crime rates low. But oh, Republican states, and religious states, have higher crime than non-Republican states and less Religious states.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Time is not on your side and neither is your ability to understand how our laws work in this country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



Oh, so Republican states it is?  Gee, I guess in Republican states, there are no liberal cities or people.  

Why don't you talk about Republican cities compared to liberal cities........ I know you don't want to go there.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


The same laws you thought would never let gays marry or adopt children?  I'm winning, you are not.


----------



## Rustic (May 8, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


Guns do kill... People do. Lol


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You are winning because freaks can now marry--by force no less? 

Again, please explain the dynamics of how a SC can rule guns are illegal and need to be confiscated.  You don't seem to understand that the SC can only rule if something is constitutional or not.  There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints that government can make firearms illegal.


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



So you ignore there words?

No wonder you love Hillary and Obama.

What makes you think they are sane and reasonable then?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Biological weapons are as bad or worse than nuclear. A change in direction of the wind and it willl blow back in your face. Not to mention the crap you have to wear for protection. I've worn the military versions and to say they are unconfortable is an under statement.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> The same laws you thought would never let gays marry or adopt children?  I'm winning, you are not.



If you are "winning", why did you get so badly _owned_ by me on your nonsensical "nuclear weapons" post that you actually had to run away?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


That may work for the sheeple in other nations but it will go down like a lead ballon here.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Biological weapons are as bad or worse than nuclear. A change in direction of the wind and it willl blow back in your face. Not to mention the crap you have to wear for protection. I've worn the military versions and to say they are unconfortable is an under statement.



Not only that - but a nuclear weapon has a limited range and a single detonation capability. Biological weapons have no range. They have _unlimited_ capabilities for replicating and spreading.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Votto said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Were we nuts to want nukes?  Was the USSR? Israel?  France?  The UK? No difference.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Lead ballon or not, it's the future.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


You mean like cocaine is _daily_ by DEA and other agencies that have confiscated it during raids.....? 

(Because...you know....man couldn't possibly manufacture more firearms and bring them in on the black market).

Yes folks....libtards _really_ are this stupid


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Who said the present Constitution will still be in play then? Not me.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


You guys have been saying that for over 100 years now and all we've seen is gun sales and gun ownership _skyrocket_


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> We're we nuts to want nukes?



Says the fourteen year old boy who wants Iran to have nukes because he is completely ignorant of the 12th imam


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


In your Liberal utopian world the 80 year old lady in the story would have been beaten and probally murdered . In your dreamy world the 80 year old great grandmother has no right to protect herself, home or family.

Great-granny, 80, got a gun, kills a home intruder who attacked husband | Fox News


----------



## Jack4jill (May 8, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Ever heard of non-lethal weapons?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


And yet NUMEROUS people including elected officials and the Clinton's have all said all they need to do is replace one Judge on the Supreme Court to gut the 2nd Amendment. Explain that one?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ever heard of non-lethal weapons?



Yes.....*it is called the liberal mind*. A useless organ which is most definitely _not_ lethal


----------



## Votto (May 8, 2016)

Dims would rather give guns to Syrian rebels and drug lords in Mexico than they would the average US citizen.

I guess cuz they trust them more than the average US citizen.

Then again, if you were as corrupt as they are I guess it is pretty understandable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


A military base is nearly unarmed only a very small select few are allowed to carry firearms and then they are either police or guards at specific small facilities.Street gangs blow your argument up as they are illegally owned and criminals to boot. Law abiding citizens do not rove about in packs of armed thugs murdering for fun.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Even if you banned private ownership tomorrow not one single criminal would turn in their weapons. And since the National Guard Police and Military have weapons they will steal them from them, further they will just smuggle them in from foreign Countries.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




I can talk about the whole thing if you like. In fact I started a whole thread on the matter. 

If a US state has Governor, House and Senate (or equivalent) that are all Republican, the average crime rate is 3107
If a US state has Republican in 2 of those positions the average crime rate is 2788
If a US state has Republican in 1 of those positions the average crime rate is 2521
If a US state has a Republican in 0 of those positions the average crime rate is 2777

If a US state voted Republican in the last 4 Presidential elections the average crime rate is 3109
If a US state voted Republican 3 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 2792
If a US state voted Republican 2 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 3053
If a US state voted Republican 1 out of the last 4 time the average crime rate is 3253
If a US state voted Republican 0 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate 2582

(for one out of 4 there's only 2 states, one has low crime, the other much higher crime, and that's a state with 2 out of three state positions Republican)

But let's look at cities.

I've looked at the top 55 cities for size.

The average size of cities with Democrat mayors is 1.1 million
The average size for cities with Republican mayors is 576,000
The average size for independent mayors is 692,000

Republicans have only one city above 1 million. 
Democrats have 9

Republicans have 13 mayors in the top 55, Republicans have 33.

So, the reality is, large cities are far more likely to be Democrat.

Yes, on average Democrat cities are likely to have higher violent crime rates.

However, when you compare the city violent crime rate with the state violent crime rate, you find something a little different.

Seven cities have lower violent crime than the state they're in.

Four in California, two in Texas and one in Virginia. 

Three are Republican, two of these are in California and on in Virginia. So, you have Republican cities in Democrat states or in Virginia which is border line, slightly more Republican than Democrat.

There are four Democrat, two in Texas, two in California, so Democrat cities in both Republican and Democrat states.

What seems clear is that these are larger states, with larger cities around them to raise crime rates overall in the city, and therefore make their crime rates relatively (compared to the state) lower. 

Basically big cities have higher crime rates as a rule, there is no set pattern of population size to violent crime rate.

There are 17 worse cities for violent crime than Philadelphia which has the worst crime of any city of over 1 million. 
In those 17 there are 4 under 300,000, 4 between 400,000 and 499,999, 6 between 600,000 and 699,000. There's one over 700,000

Nothing in the data really points to anything right now, other than Republicans are less likely to run bigger cities. 

I can add a lot more data to this, this is just with the basis. What a city constitutes Democrat/Republican wise isn't so clear from just the party of the mayor.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Guns do kill, people do???? What?

Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.


----------



## Rustic (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Guns don't kill... People kill... Lol


----------



## there4eyeM (May 9, 2016)

Guns don't 'go off', people cause them to fire.
People without guns do not cause firearms to 'go off'.
Prudence, good sense and moderation are what are required, but the extremists deem even this as 'gun grabbing'. When repression of firearm ownership does finally come, it will be cause by these far out few.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Have you ever seen a 250 lb pound man take multiple hits from a stun gun and keep on coming I have and that's from a police issue taser. The crappy little hand held ones  civilians have to settle for puts you within choking distance an 80 year old women would end up being a statistic. One last thing even in your utopia criminals won't be using non-lethal means .that's why sane law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones and should arm themselves accordingly.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 9, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


The scary thing that Liberals don't want to admit is it will take force to get the majority of Americans to relinquish there firearms. I believe the elite on the left are secretly hoping this happens because it will get rid of a number of people they deem political unacceptable mostly Conservatives and those who believe the Constitution is written in stone.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Well I'm a Liberal, and I don't necessarily think the main problem is whether people have firearms or not.

There are so many problems in the US. The left pick up on guns because there's a problem in society, and one very visable way it manifests itself is through gun violence. So they attack the gun violence. However a lot of crime happens for other root causes, and the left should be more inclined to target these. But they don't, so much. They do target these MORE than Republicans, who you'd think would target these root causes simply because it would justify their guns far more, but they don't either.

It's a simple case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with an Mi-24 Hind shooting at you an then crashing on top of you while you're still stuck between the rocks.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Camp said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...


It has already been shown that the people not the militia hold the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.
> ...


The funny thing about statistics is that they they are easy to rationalize until you become one.

If a person with a CC permit is able to defend himself or someone he loves from a piece of shit criminal just once then that's enough of  a reason for people to carry IMO


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Camp said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias*.

Supreme Court to Define ‘Well Regulated Militia’?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Camp said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Well regulated at the time did not mean government controlled but rather well ordered and disciplined


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...


Suicide is not a crime it is a choice.

People have the absolute right to end their own lives if they so choose


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Use logic here.  I see a big scary black man coming towards me late at night and I point a gun at him.  He, being sensible, runs away.  Was I in danger, did a gun save my life?  It's impossible to know.


Anyone who brandishes a gun for no reason can have their permit revoked.  It just doesn't happen very often.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Laws do not stop criminals never have never will


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Yeah I want to spray anthrax or set off a suitcase nuke if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night.  A shotgun works just fine 

Idiot.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon.  Do you know that more people are killed with fists and feet alone than are by all rifles and shotguns combined?

Of course you don't


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


A nobody just like you


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...





Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


And you think a comparison of Japan to Iraq is a valid one?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


We have peace here with guns so what's your problem?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> There are so many problems in the US. The left pick up on guns because there's a problem in society, and one very visable way it manifests itself is through gun violence. So they attack the gun violence.



No.  

Liberals don't care about people having guns.  What bugs them are people being able to defend themselves with guns.  

Democrat politicians want people to need government.  If people can take care of themselves, then who needs government, right? 

The biggest nightmare for the Democrat party is for the public to be much more self sufficient, more responsible, and less dependent on them.  It would be the end of the Democrat party forever because Democrats heavily rely on victims and government dependents.  By disarming Americans, they create more victims in our society as if we don't have enough already.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Crime in America 2016: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 - Law Street (TM)


----------



## Rustic (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


No person needs permission from a firearm to kill....
Lol


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Did you have a point to make here? Or just trying to write "lol" as many times as possible?


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 9, 2016)

Votto said:


> Dims would rather give guns to Syrian rebels and drug lords in Mexico than they would the average US citizen.






315 million guns in the USA.
You be full of shit.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Are you going to make a point, or is this a thread of not making a point and just posting not much?


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 9, 2016)

Rustic said:


> No person needs permission from a firearm to kill....






Tissue?


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Did you have a point to make here? Or just trying to write "lol" as many times as possible?





Cartoon man rustic make a point? LOL. Not a chance.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > There are so many problems in the US. The left pick up on guns because there's a problem in society, and one very visable way it manifests itself is through gun violence. So they attack the gun violence.
> ...



Oh please, cut the crap.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



"bear arms" doesn't have anything to do with whether it's the militia or the people who have the right. 

The people have the right to "bear arms", that doesn't stop the right to bear arms being the right to "render military service" or "militia duty" as stated quite clearly by the founding fathers.


----------



## ChrisL (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Since the phrase comes from the Bill of Rights, and at that time, the founders were AGAINST a "central military," of course it is referring to citizenry.  Derp.  All male citizens back in those days were expected to be armed and ready at a "moment's notice."  Why don't you learn something about history?


----------



## ChrisL (May 9, 2016)

Man oh man, some of you are soooo stupid that you can't even put 2+2 together to make 4.


----------



## hangover (May 9, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


If you believe that, you also believe that Satan will win at Armageddon. It's that kind of thinking that has given the U.S. Trump and Clinton for a choice for the next POTUS.


----------



## ChrisL (May 9, 2016)

hangover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



The studies (even Obama's 2010 study) say that they do in fact save lives, as well as many other studies.  It's only plain old common sense anyways.


----------



## hangover (May 9, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Satan will try to win Armageddon with guns, but God will win with "the word". You picked the wrong one.


----------



## ChrisL (May 9, 2016)

hangover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...



You are obviously a nut bar.


----------



## P@triot (May 9, 2016)

hangover said:


> If you believe that, you also believe that Satan will win at Armageddon. It's that kind of thinking that has given the U.S. Trump and Clinton for a choice for the next POTUS.



Only a liberal would make the case that facts are something that aren't to be "believed". Guns save lives _every_ single day in this country. Lets set aside the fact that *millions* of private citizens are saved every year by a firearm for a moment. Why do you think police officers carry guns? Why do you think the Secret Service carry guns? Why do you think the U.S. Marshalls carry guns? Because they are murderous thugs? Hired hitmen?

Come on you buffoon...give up the act already. The gun is a _strictly_ defensive weapons. But like anything else, it can be used for evil purposes. The knife was designed to cut steak with. But evil people use it for evil purposes. The internet was designed for redundant communications. But evil people use it for evil purposes (liberals to spread lies and propaganda, hackers to spread malware, sexual predators to share sexual content).

Do you know what the Spetsnaz teaches? Of course not. You've never even heard of the Spetsnaz. Well, they are Russian Special Forces - the equivalent of our Navy Seals. They are some _serious_ bad-asses. And the first thing they are taught is that *man* is the *only* weapon. Everything else is simply a tool used by man. History has proven that. People have been killed by automobiles, baseball bats, knives, ropes - hell, even bear hands. So unless you are going to ban man (which I wouldn't put it past liberals), the whole "ban guns to save people" is the _dumbest_ argument ever attempted.


----------



## ChrisL (May 9, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe that, you also believe that Satan will win at Armageddon. It's that kind of thinking that has given the U.S. Trump and Clinton for a choice for the next POTUS.
> ...



They have nothing except fear mongering and false dichotomies.  We have facts.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 9, 2016)

Camp said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...


Why do you think "well-regulated militia" is relevant?
Why hasn't C Clayton responded to the ignorance of your post?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?


----------



## hazlnut (May 9, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded





No one has a problem with law abiding citizens own firearms and carrying them when appropriate.

No One.

She's not mentally ill.

She's not a wife beater.

Drug addict.

Dishonorable discharge.

Suicidal case.

Felon.

No one cares about her, we are glad she's okay and defended herself.


----------



## ChrisL (May 9, 2016)

hazlnut said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



I've heard that before.  Lol.  And again, who is "we?"


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.


----------



## Rustic (May 9, 2016)




----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.  

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now.  In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated.  That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis. 

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare.  States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.  

You can put lipstick on a pig...........


----------



## Crixus (May 9, 2016)

I want a startrek death ray.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this. 

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door. 

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in? 

Who makes the laws? 

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state. 

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with? 


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882. 

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49. 

It doesn't always correlate like this.  Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012. 

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



How does a state cause violent crime problems for a city?

And why keep equating states with the cities instead of focusing on the cities (and who they are run by) alone?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Louisiana is the world's prison capital

Louisiana state system of locking people up. It's absurd. It's all about making money for certain people.

Does New Orleans have a say in this? Not really. If a person commits a state crime in New Orleans, they go to state prison, and they'll probably come out more likely to commit a crime afterwards.

States make laws. Laws based on policies. Cities have to live with the laws the states make. 

Or do you think a city lives in a little bubble and can ignore everything the state legislature does?


----------



## HUGGY (May 9, 2016)

*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*

I bet God has a bitchin gun collection.  My wager is he is favoring the automatics.  What with no gun laws in heaven my guess is he has a sweet stock of fully automatic 50 cal's.

God's favorite ammo?  Depleted uranium!  No Doubt!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 9, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



So site me a state law that precludes a city from practicing leniency to offenders.  More importantly, we also have federal laws where offenders have to face federal charges if in violation of federal laws.  Should we abolish the ability of the federal government to prosecute offenders of such a state? 

The truth of the matter is that state has very little to do with city prosecutions.  It's also a fact that mostly Democrat cities are the most violent and dangerous regardless of the states leadership.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Federal laws are federal laws and are covered over the whole country. I'm not so sure what these have to do with anything in this topic right now.

A city can practice leniency and so can the rest of the state. The laws are still there. 

It's a fact that Democrat cities are some of the most violent and dangerous. And there are loads more facts I could take out of context and present it so it all looks nice and cozy. 

The reality is often that there are lots of things at play here. 

You're suggesting, more or less, that state legislatures are a complete and utter waste of time. 

They make laws, but these laws don't impact any single place which has someone in charge. I don't believe this. You haven't made the case for this at all.


----------



## P@triot (May 9, 2016)

And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...

Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago


----------



## ChrisL (May 10, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> 
> I bet God has a bitchin gun collection.  My wager is he is favoring the automatics.  What with no gun laws in heaven my guess is he has a sweet stock of fully automatic 50 cal's.
> 
> God's favorite ammo?  Depleted uranium!  No Doubt!



No, he has a lightening bolt gun.


----------



## ChrisL (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...
> 
> Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago



I heard a little about that on the news today.  Sad.  Some people just need to be locked up and separated from society forever, IMO.  No paroles.  Paroling them on "good behavior."  What a joke!  Gang members are more than likely going to go right back to their gangs and continuing causing mayhem for everyone else.


----------



## Spare_change (May 10, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



Not without a fight, at least ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...
> 
> Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago



Yet the US still has a much higher murder rate than any other first world country, and it's got the most relaxed gun laws too. And you can't see this.


----------



## American_Jihad (May 10, 2016)

...


----------



## Spare_change (May 10, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...
> ...



Especially since it is categorically FALSE !


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Really?

Which first world countries have a murder rate lower than the USA?


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...
> ...



Yeah....a high murder rate because liberals keep banning guns! Like Chicago here


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.


Well yeah. You can't arm evil people, disarm law abiding citizens, and expect peace and tranquility.

This is like locking a dozen children in a room with a dozen pedophiles and then being "shocked" when a child is molested. What did you think would happen?!?


----------



## American_Jihad (May 10, 2016)

Amen...


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.
> ...



Only, they disarm law abiding people in most other first world countries, and they get more peace and tranquility than the USA.

So, your hypothesis is wrong.

No, it isn't like locking pedophiles in a room, or anything like this.

Percentage of the Population That Owns Guns State-By-State

I've got the percentage of people with guns.

The lowest 10 states for ownership have an average crime rate of 2639
The next 10 lowest states have 3091
the middle 10 states have 2979
the 2nd highest states have 3000
and the highest states have 2794

So, the lowest crime rates are with the ten states that have the lowest gun ownership. 

The highest is with the 2nd lowest, then the 2nd highest, then the middle states, then the highest, then the lowest. 

But with this the lowest 10 states for gun ownership have crime rates between 1995 and 3956
The next lowest 10 states have crime rates between 2126 and 4139
The middle 10 states have crime rates between 2114 and 3658
The 2nd highest 10 states have crime rates between 1623 and 3973
The highest 10 states have crime rates between 2067 and 3818

So the reality is that gun ownership doesn't seem to have that much to do with the amount of crime going on.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 10, 2016)

Isn't it odd that many of the same people so scared of 'democracy' insist on the democratization of firearm ownership?
What would happen if all these 'gun' owners suddenly heard a news story (read, 'rumor'), and took to the streets in a 'democratic' display and started shooting up the 'enemy' (minority)?  The 'we're-not-a-democracy-we're-a-republic' proponents may wish to meditate on that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.



Correct, because they don't have guns getting up in the middle of the night, hopping over to their neighbors and shooting them. 

Why don't you tell the truth for just once in your life?  Those countries never had much of a problem with guns even before their bans.  And in fact, some had an increase in gun murders after the ban.  Furthermore is they had an increase in other crimes because the criminals there knew their victims were helpless--just like they know here in Gun Free zones which is why most of the mass shootings take place in these zones.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.
> ...



Wait, what's the argument here?

Is the argument that more guns leads to a safer environment? 

How does this equate when there are LESS guns in other first world countries, and LESS crime? 

Have they had an increase in "other crimes". 

Generally violent crime rates don't appear to be worse than the US in any way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Oh really, then just what did you mean when you wrote this: 

_Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state._

The implication here is that the state is at fault and not your liberal cities.  Yet now you say that the cities can indeed practice leniency any time they want.  When you get liberal judges, that's what happens in many cases, so the state isn't at fault.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



It's called logic: 

If you don't have a huge gun problem and institute a gun ban, and it proves to be ineffective, then it's pretty obvious that guns are not the problem.  It may be the culture, it may be the prison system, it may be the lack of police, but it's not the guns. 

It's the exact same thing that took place in the US not long ago with the assault weapons ban.  It too showed no difference in crime, so after ten years, they got rid of that too. 

You are not going to make a murderer a non-murderer by taking away guns, because if you take away guns, the only people that would abide to that law would be law abiding people.  Criminals will never give up their guns; they don't now when they are felons and it's illegal for them to have a firearm on person or even in their home.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



The point being made here is that the state has quite a bit of power. Your argument appeared to be that the state has no impact on the city at all. 

So why do states have state governments if they're useless and no one listens to them?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...




So are you now saying guns aren't the problem here? So what is the problem? 

I'd agree that if you don't have a problem and you make a ban, then what's the point?

However what we're talking about here are whether lots of guns are the problem. Making a ban on something where there isn't much of a problem doesn't show anything.

What we have is Europe with not many guns floating around, and the US with lots of guns floating around, and the US has a much higher murder rate. 

Louisiana has the highest murder rate, it has gun ownership of 44.1% (compared to 59.7% for Wyoming and 6.7% for Hawaii) There are 12 states more than Louisiana for gun ownership. 

Second highest state for murder is Mississippi which is 6th on the list of gun ownership at 55.5%.

Third on the list of murder is Missouri, which is 21st on the list of gun ownership. 


At the other end, Hawaii with the least number of guns has the 5th lowest murder rate.

Next up is New Jersey which is 24th on the list of murders. 

So again, more guns don't necessarily mean more murders and more crimes. However nowhere in the US is vacuum and there are no borders between states. The hardest state to smuggle guns must be Hawaii, as it's so far away, and it sees the benefit of this, low guns and low crime.

Here's the issue. States with low gun ownership don't live in a bubble. Guns can come in from other states and it's difficult to almost impossible to stop it from happening without border controls and checks on luggage and vehicles. 

New Jersey has a low number of guns, but has two major cities, and one with quite a high murder rate (Phili) very close to its borders. This probably has a massive impact on its crime rate. I'd bet many of NJ's murder and crime happen in places like Newark, Elizabeth and the equivalents close to Phili.

Europe on the other hand doesn't have this problem. It doesn't have countries around which have a much higher gun ownership (except maybe Switzerland, but this is a different case as many of these guns are locked up for militia use), and therefore doesn't have guns seeping in from other countries so much (it still happens, but much less so), getting guns in Europe is harder (I didn't say impossible) because there are less people with guns, and therefore less dealers and this means less people to steal from and less dodgy dealers. 

Guns in the US and the way they are handled nationwide lead to issues with guns. In Europe there are less of these problems because there aren't a lot of guns floating around.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Use logic here.  I see a big scary black man coming towards me late at night and I point a gun at him.  He, being sensible, runs away.  Was I in danger, did a gun save my life?  It's impossible to know.


Are you afraid of big scary black men?

Is it logical to point a gun at a man because he is black?


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Camp said:


> Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.[/QUOTE
> 
> Some would view the 2nd in jeopardy with the continuous insistence of banning firearms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > SuperDemocrat said:
> ...



Thank you for posting that quote from arguably the most conservative justice and the right's best ally on the court , Justice Scalia.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.
> ...


The paranoia is you. Why are you so afraid of those of us who are armed?

No one is telling me to be paranoid. I own firearms. Who are you to decide and to insist that it is paranoia to own a tool?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Scalia basically saying the right to bear arms is NOT the right to carry arms. If it were, then concealed weapons permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Tyrant. Come get them coward.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
> ...



Considering that is their primary purpose, I would say you are indeed the clueless one.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


One search and you will find that entire region has been at war for centuries


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.
> ...


Everywhere? 

You cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



MOPP training was the worst. For some reason it was always in July.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


The only time I felt even close to being comfortable at level 5 was winter time at Ft. Drum.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


That fact that you attempt to take the obvious to the most literal extreme in order to argue something which cannot be argued actually means that _you_ cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Once banned the control takes over.  It won't be perfect but the prisons filling  up won't be a problem.  To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell the guns off to the armies of the world.



Blah. Blah. Blah. The false bravado of libtards all over this board is comical. They believe if they proclaim something outrageous, not only will it "enrage" those on the other side (for their own amusement - juvenile), but there is also a part of them that believes they can speak it into existence.

Congress will *never* ban firearms. Especially since the failures of liberalism handed both the House and the Senate over to conservatives. If you attempt to achieve that through a Supreme Court ruling, that is 100% unconstitutional and that means we don't have to comply (and we won't).

And here's the best part. Even if you managed to achieve it through Congress (and again - that will *never* happen), we're _still_ not surrendering our firearms. We have a Constitutional _right_ to them. The overwhelming majority of the military and law enforcement strongly agrees with that. I remember when my state passed conceal carry, law enforcement was ecstatic. I met with a lot of them and they all said the same thing "I can't be everywhere at once" and "I'm not worried about all of you people going through background checks for your permits". See, the criminals they deal with were already armed anyway. It didn't put law enforcement in any more danger to arm law abiding citizens. It's just basic logic. Which is why you liberals don't understand it.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



The most hated words, gas...gas....gas.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



You wrote it, not me. Try saying what you mean next time.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush.  You can have peace with or without guns.



Iraq was "peaceful"??? The populace was disarmed and terrified of a dictator who tortured and killed thousands. That's your idea of "peaceful"?  

Yep! Typical libtard....calling for authoritarian dictator to rule the U.S. Listen J4J - the U.S. Constitution promised you liberty. It never promised you security. Clearly liberty is too "scary" for you (all libtards find it frightening for some reason) so it's just time for you to leave. There are plenty of disarmed socialist nations that you can run to and live you "utopia" of a disarmed populace under the thumb of a tyrant. One is Cuba - and it's very close to the U.S. so you can stop and visit the one or two people able to stomach you in this country.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 10, 2016)

When U.S. soldiers shot innocent, unarmed civilians, why would they not shoot civilians actually breaking a law, even one that perhaps the soldiers didn't totally agree with?


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Actually...._you_ wrote it. You weren't capable of disputing what I said so you have to attempt to distort it since you can't deny it.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Except I disputed directly what you said. You seem confused.


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Now compare that to America: full of guns and the most gun deaths of any advanced society on earth.
> ...



Rott:

"People die where guns are banned."

Guns are not banned in America.  Yet we have the most gun deaths of any advanced society.  

Guns are banned in Australia and most of Europe.  They have fewer gun deaths in decades than we have in years.  

I win.


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



That shuts them up every time....I have no idea what the response was but I'm guessing it was either no response or that the "costs made such questions inmaterial" or some bullshit like that.

Should I be able to go down to Wal Mart and buy landmines?  Surely the costs are not prohibitive, all they do is blow up using conventional explosives and either a pressure trigger or a proximity device; just what I need for halloween; I can put them 0.00000000000000000000000001 inch inside my "no trespassing" sign and if any kids come, blammo!!!!  I'm innocent by virtue of the sign and that we have concealed carry.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



Gawd you trolls are stupid


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


_“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”_

What, exactly, do you suppose all this means?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Can you own a nuke, yes or no?  It's an arm, right?
> ...



Only the people who think nuclear weapons are firearms.
The rest of us?  Not so much.
Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Guns are banned in New York and Chicago. You should really know what you're talking about _before_ speaking.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> That shuts them up every time....



Really? Because I _obliterated_ her ignorant "are you allowed to own nukes" question. _Obliterated_. To the point that she had no response.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



It means there's plenty of room under the 2ND to regulate the type of guns, gun sales and gun ownership. According to the most conservative justice on the court at the time.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ....*I have no idea* what the response was *but I'm guessing*



Story of your life Candy. For once you actually admitted that you really don't have _any_ idea but you spend a whole lot of time guessing


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> It means there's plenty of room under the 2ND to regulate the type of guns, gun sales and gun ownership. According to the most conservative justice on the court at the time.



Please show me _where_ in the U.S. Constitution it sites "room" to "regulate". You can't. Game over.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > It means there's plenty of room under the 2ND to regulate the type of guns, gun sales and gun ownership. According to the most conservative justice on the court at the time.
> ...



Did you read what I was responding to there Corky?


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Kill or be killed. That's the reality folks. The Police most often only arrive after the fact. They can't be everywhere at all times. They'll arrive after the bloody deed with their chalk and body bag.

So the fact is, it is you against the rabid beasts. It's your responsibility to protect your loved ones. Arming yourself and becoming proficient with your firearm, is a good way to do that. You owe it to your family to keep them safe. Don't let em down.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Should I be able to go down to Wal Mart and buy landmines?



Uh..._yes_. Yes you should. _Duh_. What kind of a submissive coward would advocate that her government should own that kind of arms but not herself or her fellow citizens?

The U.S. Constitution *never* guaranteed you security sweetie. It guaranteed you liberty. If liberty is just too scary for you (and clearly, it _is_), then it's time for you to go bye-bye. Cuba has everything you've ever desired. Socialism. A disarmed population. A beautiful ocean view. Nice weather. It's time for you to go live your libtard "utopia". Ah buh-bye!


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Kill or be killed. That's the reality folks. The Police most often only arrive after the fact. They can't be everywhere at all times. They'll arrive after the bloddy deed with their chalk and body bag.
> 
> So the fact is, it is you against the rabid beasts. It's your responsibility to protect your loved ones. Arming yourself and becoming proficient with your firearm, is a good way to do that. You owe it to your family to keep them safe. Don't let em down.


Pauly.....what are you doing? Libtards like Candy don't understand logic. Plus, having been part of a faction that has been waging a war on women for decades, there is nothing she'd rather see than unarmed, helpless women raped and murdered at the end of a knife. It gets her off for some bizarre reason (theories abound).


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > That shuts them up every time....
> ...



You never answered the question.


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Should I be able to go down to Wal Mart and buy landmines?
> ...



Pure comedy


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Kill or be killed. That's the reality folks. The Police most often only arrive after the fact. They can't be everywhere at all times. They'll arrive after the bloddy deed with their chalk and body bag.
> 
> So the fact is, it is you against the rabid beasts. It's your responsibility to protect your loved ones. Arming yourself and becoming proficient with your firearm, is a good way to do that. You owe it to your family to keep them safe. Don't let em down.



So if I don't kill someone....I will be killed?


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



That's a great start.  Now if we could do that nationwide we would be like Australia and have almost no gun deaths


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


It says, Bear Arms, not guns.  Now what?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Kill or be killed. That's the reality folks. The Police most often only arrive after the fact. They can't be everywhere at all times. They'll arrive after the bloddy deed with their chalk and body bag.
> ...


If someone is going to attack you... maybe

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night...  maybe

Those things happen and happen enough to enough people to at least think about some sort of self defense.
I view a gun as just another insurance policy and like any other insurance I own I hope to hell I never need it but on the chance that I do need it I will be glad I have it


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > What, exactly, do you suppose all this means?
> ...


Like what, specifically?
Note the 2nd use of the word 'specific".


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Kill or be killed. That's the reality folks. The Police most often only arrive after the fact. They can't be everywhere at all times. They'll arrive after the bloddy deed with their chalk and body bag.
> ...



For me, it isn't very complicated. It's kill or be killed. Women especially, should arm themselves and become proficient with their weapon. If not a firearm, then obtain some other weapon for defense. Women especially, are preyed on 24/7.

Most women aren't like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. They don't have 24/7 armed security, or live in well-secured mansions on massive secluded gated properties. Most are on their own against the rabid beasts. I think it's crazy a woman would even consider not arming and protecting herself. Not a wise safe decision.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


Rabid beasts?  Most women who are raped, for example, know who is raping them, 3 out of 4 times.  Explain how the gun was supposed to help them then?  Self defense training might help but a gun?  No.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 10, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Herein is the problem with this comment: _ "You're a pansy for wanting to protect your own life and perhaps your family"_;  every parent, no doubt, of each child killed at Sandy Hook Elementary wanted to keep his or her child safe.  No amount of firepower will keep someone intent on murder from completing the act, for the actor is not known before the fist blood is spilled.

Our Bill of Rights protects all of us, something gun lovers want to forget, so focused are they on their right to bear arms.  So the NRA and its supporters seek to deprive some citizens of their rights based on subjective biases, and be left alone by the government and laws, to enjoy the fantasy that their guns will always be at the ready to protect a family member at all times and in all places (such as school, a movie theater or sitting in their living room as an errant shot comes through a window).

Guns kill people, as do cars and knives - but which is the chosen weapon of choice by a mass murderer with such an intent?  Both guns and knives have legal restrictions;  A driver needs to be trained and licensed and insured; and push button, gravity and stiletto knives are illegal (as far as I know) in the US.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Do you mean "exactly"?

It means what I said it means. Now if you have something to add then feel free. But I'm not playing word games.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


It does not say Firearm.  It says, Bear Arms.  Lots of arms around, right?  

At least one here thinks you can own personal nukes.  Anything the government has you should be able to have.  That's his position.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Kill or be killed. That's the reality folks. The Police most often only arrive after the fact. They can't be everywhere at all times. They'll arrive after the bloddy deed with their chalk and body bag.
> ...



If you and your family are attacked, it will be just you against the rabid beasts. The Police won't likely arrive until after the bloody deed is done. They just can't be everywhere at all times.

A woman especially, should always be armed. They're preyed on 24/7. If not a firearm, then obtain another type of weapon. And become proficient with it. In a case of 'kill or be killed', who's it gonna be? You, or the rabid beast?


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Paranoia strikes deep, into the heart it will creep, there's a man with a gun over there, telling me I need to beware.  

Sorry. fear only works with those who are always afraid, people like you.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Take the responsibility of protecting your family very seriously. Don't take it lightly. If you have a wife and daughters, obtain firearms and train them how to use them. Train them to the point they're comfortable and confident handling them. Take them to the range and practice together. 

Because like it or not, we do live in a very sick world. Women especially, are being hunted by insane violent psychopaths 24/7. So, protect your wives and daughters. Help them obtain the ability to defend themselves. You could be saving their lives.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



A bullet to the head is an effective deterrent. Rape is a brutal atrocity. Women never get over it. They live with it the rest of their lives. Think about it in terms of if it was your own mother, wife, or daughter. 

But if you're not comfortable with a firearm, obtain another type of weapon. And become proficient at using it. Women especially, are prey for the brutal psychopaths out there. I think it's shocking any woman would consider not arming herself these days.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Many victims of horrific crimes have had your same mentality. Until it happens to you or your loved ones, you have no idea what brutal terror is. Women especially, should always be armed. If not with a firearm, then some other type of weapon. But don't just obtain the weapon, become proficient with its use.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




You know....a gun stops even people you know.....like a husband on a restraining order...or the guy on your date who won't take no for an answer......funny how they will listen to the loaded gun pointed at them......

Why is it that you guys think women can't use a gun effectively.......is it simply because as a left wing nutter, rape and sexual abuse of women is kind of a perk for you guys?  And if we let women have guns....they won't just "let it happen?"


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


Women don't shoot men they know, and men they know know where they keep their guns.

A gun is not defense, it's offense.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Except of course you are wrong.....Sandy Hook was a gun free zone....the middle school and the high school both had armed security.  The shooter picked Sandy Hook because he knew that he would be free to shoot and wouldn't be stopped until the police arrived....he had scouted the locations and had been researching mass shooting for about 2 years.

1,500,000 million Americans a year use guns to stop violent criminal attack....armed civiliians at the scene of mass shootings have stopped mass shooters.....you are wrong...completely wrong...on every aspect of the gun debate.

Mass shooters who select their locations choose gun free zones...Sandy Hook, the South Carolina church shooter, the Colorado theater shooter....and because of people like you....most public buildings are already gun free zones...so shooters who just have an emotional reason to shoot up a building don't have to worry..the building is already gun free...because of people like you.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Wrong......you are making that up out of your ass....but thanks for playing.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




And here is actual research....

And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape....*.*
Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

*First,* a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

*Second,* raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

*Third,* a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. *Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.* Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

*Fourth,* *we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." *(Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



It's the rampant Anti-2nd Amendment propaganda. Most on the Left are victims of it. They're listening to pampered rich well-protected Political Elites. Folks like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton don't live in the real world. They live in a fantasy world where they have 24/7 armed security and live in well-secured luxurious mansions on massive gated properties.

But for most other Americans, that just isn't the case. They're on their own against the rabid beasts. Women especially, shouldn't listen to those folks. They should instead arm themselves and be prepared to defend. That would be the wisest safest course of action.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Learn about rape, then you will know why thinking a gun will defend you is stupid.  It won't, in nearly all cases.  You are promoting a lie. 

Take a self-defense class, skip the gun.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Yeah......sorry...you are wrong...


And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape....*.*
Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Well, you make your own choices. You choose to be unarmed, that's your call i guess. But i wouldn't advise it. Women especially, are hunted by brutal psychopaths 24/7.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Women are mostly raped by family members, boyfriends, and men they know.  They would almost never shoot, and it would be too late regardless.

You are thinking of the guy who jumps out of the bushes, and they'll never see him coming.  That is a very small number of rape cases and the best defense is self defense, not a gun.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


The paranoid world you live in is all in your head.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Come on.....you have to be brain...this is the exact same stupid argument he makes.........

I used to teach self defense moron........reality, as well as the actual research show that guns are the best tool to stop a rape...especially stranger rape....


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


So, you -cannot- tell us what specific regulations on the right to arms are (supposedly) constitutionally permissible by the paragraph you cite.
Thank you .


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Yes I did. Go back and read it genius. Plus there is a _lot_ more I can add to it if you'd like.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


The term as used in the 2nd has a legal definition - why do you choose to be ignorant of this?

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Stranger rape is one of four.  For three of four women, a gun is useless.  Just because people feel a gun might stop a rape doesn't mean it will.

Women don't shoot their family members or boyfriends.  Most won't even shoot a stranger let alone a man they know and it's men they know who rape them.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> *That's a great start*.  Now if we could do that nationwide we would be like Australia and have almost no gun deaths



I inform Candy that guns are banned in Chicago (because, as usual, she doesn't know). I then add a link showing 43 people shot just over one weekend alone (Mother's Day no less) and 20 some killed. Her response? "That's a great start. Now if we could just do that nationwide".

You can't make this stuff up folks. She's happy about people being shot and killed and wants it to be "nationwide".


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Where does the Constitution say "gun"?


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Guns are arms genius. So are bombs. Grenades. RPG's. Tanks.

Is there a liberal that has ever passed 2nd grade reading? Either they are pathological liars or they are completely illiterate. I'm guess a lot of both.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Women don't shoot their family members or boyfriends.  Most won't even shoot a stranger let alone a man they know and it's men they know who rape them.



Yeah....you're right. They all just sit back and enjoy a good raping. _Idiot_.

Any rational, normal woman (i.e. anyone not a liberal) would absolutely shoot a family member, boyfriend, etc. if that person had a knife to their throat and was attempting to rape them.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

And it's really easy to take your wife and daughters to the range and practice. It can actually be a lot of fun. It can be done, and is being done. I see it all the time these days.

Help them become comfortable and confident with the firearms. It's very important, because you don't want a terrible incident to be the first time they handle the firearms. You want them to be proficient by then. So, get out and shoot. It's fun. Enjoy.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Women don't shoot their family members or boyfriends.  Most won't even shoot a stranger let alone a man they know and it's men they know who rape them.



The next time you say something intelligent will be the first time you've ever said anything intelligent. Just because you're afraid of an inanimate object, you want to try to convince people that you know exactly what a woman who is about to be raped will do.

You sound like the worst minsogynst pig _ever_. "I'm afraid of guns, so I'll just tell everyone that women enjoy a good raping, especially if it is by someone they know". _Idiot_.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


One of Joe's socks is unaccounted-for.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rabid beasts?  Most women who are raped, for example, know who is raping them, 3 out of 4 times.  Explain how the gun was supposed to help them then?  Self defense training might help but a gun?  No.



Explain how a gun is supposed to help them? Ok _stupid_. They pick the gun up and point it at their attacker. The person freezes in their tracks in most cases. She calls the police. Gun saved the day again. Or, the attacker keeps going, she shoots and kills him. Gun saved the day again.

Would you like to keep playing?


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Exactly! I'm amazed at how many idiot foreigners feel the need to jump in on American politics when they are completely clueless about our Constitution, our rights, and our structure of government (just like American liberals )


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


And we will meekly give up our firearms.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> And it's really easy to take your wife and daughters to the range and practice. It can actually be a lot of fun. It can be done, and is being done. I see it all the time these days.
> 
> Help them become comfortable and confident with the firearms. It's very important, because you don't want a terrible incident to be the first time they handle the firearms. You want them to be proficient by then. So, get out and shoot. It's fun. Enjoy.


Go to range and learn gun.  Check.
Go to apartment and put gun in bedside table. Check.
Go to party at college with girlfriend.  Check.
Drink too much with guy I really like.  Check.
Pass out and get raped by same guy.  Check.

Yeah, the gun was a big fucking help.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> You have a limited right, and that will go away eventually.



I have an unlimited _right_ junior. And there is nothing you can about it. Which is why you are so pissed off.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


He's going to door to door and forcefully demand you give him your firearms.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Why would anyone think that?

Your gun versus their tank.  GLWT.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Unnecessary.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Got to party at college with girlfriend.  Check.
> Drink too much with guy I really like.  Check.
> Pass out and get raped by same guy.  Check.
> 
> Yeah, the gun was a big fucking help.



But that's what liberals do. Get drunk and take drugs. Conservatives don't do that. So it's not a problem.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Better safe than sorry. Women especially, are being hunted. And most aren't pampered elites with 24/7 armed security and living in luxurious well-secured mansions. That's the life of rich elite women like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

The elites and their families are in no danger of being raped and murdered. They're very well-protected. They don't live in the same world as most others do. In the real world, it is only you against the rabid beasts. It is what it is.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Why would anyone think that?
> 
> Your gun versus their tank.  GLWT.



Thank you for _proving_ that the 2nd Amendment has been significantly violated already. The fact that your admitting that you've stripped the American people to the point that they can't defend themselves against their own military if fun by a tyrannical government is indisputable proof that the 2nd Amendment has not been upheld like idiots such as CCJ claim.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


You have to remember Pauly, that's exactly what people like J4J and Candy _want_. Women helpless and hunted. They are scared of liberty. They want _control_ over others.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *That's a great start*.  Now if we could do that nationwide we would be like Australia and have almost no gun deaths
> ...


CC and reality broke off their relationship quite some time ago.
I used to feel sorry for her in that regard, but its clear that -she- initiated the separation..


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Unnecessary.


Just like _all_ of your posts. Uninformed and inaccurate. Thus...._unnecessary_.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Where does the Constitution say "gun"?


I see that you -choose- to be ignorant of the law.
That being the case,  it is impossible for you to have an honest conversation in this regard.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> CC and reality broke off their relationship quite some time ago.
> I used to feel sorry for her in that regard, but its clear that -she- initiated the separation..


Best. Post. Ever. Holy heck did that literally cause me to burst out laughing. Well done and thank you for that good laugh!


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > And it's really easy to take your wife and daughters to the range and practice. It can actually be a lot of fun. It can be done, and is being done. I see it all the time these days.
> ...


Sad how you honestly think that describing a hypothetical instance where a gun is of no help means that guns can never be of any help.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


When 3 of 4 rapes would not be stopped by a gun, stop believing a gun is the answer.  It's dumb.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the Constitution say "gun"?
> ...


I am aware of the law, and also aware that the Constitution does not say "gun".


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > And it's really easy to take your wife and daughters to the range and practice. It can actually be a lot of fun. It can be done, and is being done. I see it all the time these days.
> ...



Hey, you choose to be unarmed and unprotected. That's your call. But millions of other American women are choosing to arm themselves and be prepared. In fact, i think more & more are deciding to do that.

American gun ranges are now full of women. That wasn't the case a few years ago. But like i said, you make your own decisions in this life. You do what you gotta do, and other women will do what they gotta do.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Sad how you honestly think that citing this "fact" based in part on your suppositions means that guns can never be of any help
But....since no one else asked you to do so....
Prove yourclaim.
Be sure to not to to use your own suppositions as support.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I never said never.  I said they are useless, which in most cases they are because in most cases women get raped by men they either know or are related to.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Ah - so you ARE aware the 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.

Good to see you fully understand that your attempt to interject weapons beyond firearms into the conversation is nothing but a red herring.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


... and so, in some cases, they _are _useful, negating your claim they are useless.
Well done.



> When 3 of 4 rapes would not be stopped by a gun....


Again:  Prove your claim.
Be sure to not to to use your own suppositions as support.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That is injected by others which is why we ask if nukes are allowed?  Read the thread, there are those here who believe any weapon the government has they can have.  No regualations at all.  That's not my position or yours so next time read first then post.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


My claim is easy, women don't shoot men they know and most won't shoot a stranger.

And I'm not about to account for every possible exception here.  A gun is not the answer to rape, that is men not raping women, and they mostly rape women they know.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


And they are! Heavily.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


So true. That discussion has come up on many occasions.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Oh please!


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


In that case we need to look at Criminals who are using the firearms to commit crimes.

Gangs and drug dealers protecting their drug trade.

Mental illness.

Fix these problems and the climate of fear may disappear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


I responded to your argument that 'arms" means all weapons.
Why argue this when you know that it does not?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


This is your supposition; as such it does nothing to prove your claim.



> And I'm not about to account for every possible exception here.


Your claim is that guns are useless in the prevention of rape -- unless you account for these exceptions, your claim cannot be proven true.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Mass shootings on Military Reservations. Never occurred until WE were disarmed.

Gun Ranges. When those who decide to go to the range and start shooting people.  Not the typical range user.

Street gangs. Criminals don't obey laws.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases?
> ...


Damn. Sorry. I addressed it for you. My bad.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Bingo! Never had a "mass shooting" on a military base until idiot Bill Clinton thought that our own military should be disarmed. Next thing you know....we get mass shootings.

It's a special kind of stupid that can only be embraced by people like the Clinton's, J4J, and Candycorn.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Going to be real hard to disarm America. We won't give them up. And when you come looking for them they won't be here. Oops! Sorry officer, I gave them up at the last buy back.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


I thought it was a Joesock.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Uh huh! Sure they will.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


And that is all you have. Words words words.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Yes. When are you going to stop torturing animals with them.


----------



## PK1 (May 10, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


---
"Heavily" is a relative term. And our social reality is different now than 200+ years ago; "*arms*" are a lot more lethal, e.g., plastic bombs & automatic short rifles w/ super destructive bullets.

The bottom line is public safety or_* "the security of a free state"*_.
The debate should be about that, not profits for gun manufacturers or fun for gun fanatics, both represented by NRA. If NRA regulated itself, its members, then gov/voters would not need to step in to focus on "public safety" ... which has its own relative viewpoints! 
Obviously, not a simple black/white issue.
.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Here we go again.

One more time for those who missed it.

Militia. An Army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


You want to focus on public safety. Fine. I'm with you.

Address the Criminals, gangs, drug dealers and the mentally ill.

We have enough laws to address public safety. Disarming law abiding citizens will not address public safety concerns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> "Heavily" is a relative term. And our social reality is different now than 200+ years ago; "*arms*" are a lot more lethal, e.g., plastic bombs & automatic short rifles w/ super destructive bullets.


Heh.
Can you prove an example of an "automatic short rifle"?
A "super destructive bullet"?



> The bottom line is public safety or_* "the security of a free state"*_.


These terms do not mean the same thing.



> The debate should be about that...


Feel free to debate that, keeping in mind 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; saidl 2nd Amendment states that said rights "shall not be infringed".


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> Isn't it odd that many of the same people so scared of 'democracy' insist on the democratization of firearm ownership?
> What would happen if all these 'gun' owners suddenly heard a news story (read, 'rumor'), and took to the streets in a 'democratic' display and started shooting up the 'enemy' (minority)?  The 'we're-not-a-democracy-we're-a-republic' proponents may wish to meditate on that.


I'm quite sure that those gun owners would not just take to the streets and start firing at their friends neighbors and families.

Let's meditate on that.


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I did. You didn’t.


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > You have a limited right, and that will go away eventually.
> ...



We’ll see what the Supreme Court says after Hillary gets 400 EVs….  tick tock tick tock tick tock


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Proving yet _again_ that you lie and that you are completely ignorant. Here you go Candy....

I gave a simple answer in post #362 on page #37

And an in-depth response in post #369 on page #37

And by the way - I haven't even given the best reasons yet. I'm waiting for a libtard to have any kind of logical response before I break out the point that will destroy _any_ stupid think you people have to say about nukes. So please (and I'm serious - _please_) come up with some even remotely logical response so I can humiliate you people and put this nonsensical and desperate position away once and for all!


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Thankfully for the American people.....neither the Supreme Court nor Hilldabeast get to decide my Constitutional *right*. That's the beauty of a right my dear. It's non-negotiable and cannot be revoked (unless the Constitution is amended of course and - well - good luck with _that_).


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



You’re not that interesting….feel free to re-type it so I can laugh at it in person.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Aside from having a partisan, political agenda, as you suggest, why would the court overturn _Heller_?


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Hmmm….

And if you don’t have health insurance, you pay a penalty.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I wrote and managed two VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) grants offered by the Dept. of Justice (DOJ), which included probation officers, police officers/sheriff deputies and victim advocates, evaluated anger management training and enforced stay away court orders.  I have a very good grasp on the issues, and violence which women face in our society and around the world.


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)




----------



## SmokeALib (May 10, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.


You damn right it ain't stupid leftist.


----------



## Jarhead (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


it is a tax. Not a penalty. If it were a penalty, it would have been deemed as unconstitutional...thus making your post non applicable.

I assume you did not really care about the SCOTUS decision. All you cared about was Obama winning. For if you truly cared, you would have understood how a "penalty" would have been unconstitutional.

You are pathetically transparent. And noticeably naïve as it pertains to the crux of the issues.


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> ...



Well,... of course he does!   God is a collector though.  He collects the souls of these dweebs forever and ever and on and on... He's got BILLIONS of them. 

Doncha think he might wanna collect other cool shit?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



A gun IS the answer to violent crime.  

I belonged to a local blog when our state was considering Concealed Carry.  I got into it with one of your ilk who asked me why I'm behind the new proposed law. 

I told him the usual stuff, but my main concern is my mother.  My mother never drove a car in her life.  She likes to walk to places she needs to go like the store, a neighbors house, Bingo, the church and so on.  That's why I wanted the law to pass. 

He wrote back and asked if the law did pass, would my elderly mother carry a firearm? 

To that I replied "no she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that." 

In many states, a guy would have to seriously consider if raping a woman is worth his life unlike before CCW laws were passed.  In our state, there is an overwhelming amount of females applying for the gun license and is now outpacing men.  

You see, CCW laws protect the armed person because he has equal or greater defense than the attacker.  But it also greatly benefits those who do not carry a gun because a criminal is unsure whether you are one of those people who do have a gun or not.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Candy,

You seem to think that we are just going to become disarmed just because Hillary is President.

Fuck her and the SC.

I don't care who is President.

We are not just going to hand over our weapons and disarm ourselves.

They will have to shred the Constitution and bust down every door in this nation to do what you imply.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...





Again.....are you sure you aren't Brain........I feel like I am posting directly to him.....this is exactly his stupid argument for why women should not carry guns......just let that alleged 25% get raped since the gun might not help the other 75%.......did you guys go to the same government school....?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Absolutely.  Disarm the women in our country and allow strange men wearing dresses enter their public restroom facilities............ but it's the Republicans that have this war on women you see.......


----------



## Jarhead (May 10, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Candycorn continually shows us how naïve she is as it pertains to the constitution and the overall issues of our nation.
She seems to believe that a President can override and amendment with an executive order....and based on her post, she seems to believe that the supreme court has the power to determine an amendment as unconstitutional.,


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > And it's really easy to take your wife and daughters to the range and practice. It can actually be a lot of fun. It can be done, and is being done. I see it all the time these days.
> ...




This is exactly how left wing nut jobs see people.......the woman is completely clueless about her own safety.....

Listen moron...the woman who goes and gets a concealed carry permit.....is 21....since that is the age for buying a hand gun....so no...she isn't getting drunk, especially if she bought a gun for self defense.....

what is it with you lefties and wanting women to be easily raped.........is it like what I think...that sexual assault is a perk for being a left wing guy?


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Except for the actual research that shows a gun stops a rape cold......while all other means allow the rape to more or less happen.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...




Everytime I go I see women all over the place......nice change from the 90s when you never saw them there.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Come on....brain changed his name...right.....I swear it is like talking to brain on this topic....


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 10, 2016)

Jarhead said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


She also fails to realize that damned near everyone of us served this country and are fully capable in the use of the firearms we own.

These idiots also think that our own military families will go against us and ignore the Constitution. They do not understand that we will fight back and our Military families will join us.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

Jarhead said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No, the SC can't do that.  But what they can do is rule that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to firearms of citizens outside of an organized militia. 

If that were the case, then it would be up to states and cities to create their own gun laws; laws such as a heavy tax on guns and ammo; laws that consists of piles of paperwork and red tape; laws that guns are down right outlawed in a city or state.  

It's a very dangerous thing, and something I hope most people consider when deciding to vote for Hillary or not.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...




again...the facts, the truth and reality are not on your side.....

We do not have a gun problem......we have a criminal problem.....with 357,000,000 million guns in private hands there were 8,124 gun murders in 2014......70-80% of the victims, more in some cities, were convicted felons shot by other felons.....leaving about 1,642 actually innocent victims of gun crime.....

but that means 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder against anyone......

And in 2013...with 320,000,000 million guns in private hands we only had 505 gun accidental deaths.....

Each year guns are used to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 million times by normal Americans....and they save lives when they are doing it...

There is nothing you say about the gun debate that is even remotely accurate or reflects the reality of guns in the United States.....


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Apparently it's some secret constitutional knowledge unknown to the justices that you don't wish to share.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




And you are still F*****g clueless.....


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Not sure how I, or anyone else, can share what YOU think about the constitutional / legal ramifications of that paragraph might be.
So far, YOU haven't said squat.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


True. But they can tax my bank account from anywhere. Good luck coming to confiscate my guns. You won't see _anyone_ in law enforcement even attempt to enforce that were it to happen because the overwhelming majority of them completely support an armed citizenry and the few that don't won't feel it is worth dying over.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


In other words....you don't have a logical response. Don't worry, that's not reflection of you. It's the reflection of the absurd position.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



A steel door and a teacher with a gun could have prevented all those kids' deaths


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 10, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I responded, now either discuss my post or fuck off.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Shocking. Another left-wing arrogant atheist who believes he is the "almighty" and all "powerful". Why? Because he compared himself to gerbil and determined that that made him the superior being in the universe.

The hilarious thing about liberals is that they don't even know how much they don't even know.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


arms: definition of arms in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

By just talking about guns we are actually restricting the definition to a very narrow one


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > And it's really easy to take your wife and daughters to the range and practice. It can actually be a lot of fun. It can be done, and is being done. I see it all the time these days.
> ...


Yeah and ever rape involves a drunk girl right?


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Laws do not stop criminals never have never will



Logic does not stop liberals. Never have, never will (unfortunately)


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


Remember, in the mind of liberals, it does. It's _always_ the girls fault and usually because she was drunk. The left has been waging this kind of war on women for decades.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Laws do not stop criminals never have never will



Here is the best part of that reality and what demonstrates the profound stupidity of liberalism. Since the founding of this nation, there have been laws against murder. The laws against murder are so serious, that a person can ultimately be sentenced with capital punishment for it.

Now, if the laws against murder (punishable by death) doesn't stop someone from picking up a gun and killing people, how exactly will laws again guns stop them from picking up a gun and killing someone? 

Liberal logic folks! Few thing are as amusing.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Really? Well since the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court and laid out their function, please show me the section of the Constitution in which it tasked the Supreme Court with deciding what the Constitution itself means (hint: you won't be able to because nobody would be dumb enough to create a law and then in that law decide to give someone else the power to decide what that law means).


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



There you go again... compounding your stupidity with ignorance.  You think that an atheist can't qualify as a republican because we don't believe your wishful sky fairy religion yet the republican party has all but nominated a man that only believes in his personal wealth.  Do you think Trump believes in YOUR version of God?  Not very likely Sparky.  He doesn't care about abortion.  He doesn't care about gays.  He has no loyalty concerning Made In America.  He has never been loyal to his marriage vows.  Just what has Trump exemplified in his life that parallels the neo con existence?  

So I HAVE to be a liberal? Because I think you are an idiot?  Rave on Sport.  Your opinion is meaningless and can be bought and sold by the highest bidders.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


There you go again....compounding your stupidity with ignorance. I've posted only several dozen times already how much I hate Trump and was completely against him. But you go with that absurd position that I'm "supporting" him...junior.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 10, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Your response was meaningless -- you were told that this paragraph is significant, but you have no idea why, because you have no idea what any of it means.
This is what happen when your master of an issue is limited to talking points.


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I'm more of a fan of the second amendment that either you or trump.  I was given my first firearms when I was ten.  I bagged the biggest buck in my community when I was twelve.  There isn't a damned thing you can tell me about the right to bare arms.  That is what this thread is about right? moron?  I inherited my grandfathers custom built Weatherby 300.  It was his prize Elk gun.  I'll take my Gramp's wishes on gun ownership than anything your silly ass has to say about who should own a weapon.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That is not at all what the research shows and a gun will not stop most rapes so stop saying it will.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 10, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


No, but that happens often enough.  Just another example of where a gun wouldn't help.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 10, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Maybe, but once again it's all about you and your rights.  Did you consider the costs to arm every teacher, train them, develop a use of force policy and insure the school district for liability?  Doesn't the taxpayer have a say in such an expense? 

What if a teacher decided s/he didn't want to carry a gun, would you fire him or her?  What about the consequences to a teacher who shot and killed a child who brought a gun to school -  do we pay for their treatment for PTSD? 

Do we also arm, train and require drivers of public transportation to be armed, how about grocery clerks and umpires at baseball games (especially Little League)?  Where doe this lunacy stop?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You don't have to arm them all.  Just a few would do.  And they could go through the same training cops go through at a bare minimum of cost since they are all state employees already.

Don't confuse private sector employees with employees of the state charged with the care of minors.

Do you let the bag boy at the Piggly Wiggly watch your kids?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


and what about the times it doesn't happen that way and a woman could defend herself?

But you don't give a shit about that woman right?

I think the exception proves the rule in this case.

If one person saves his own life by carrying a gun than that's good enough for me


----------



## westwall (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded








GOOD for her!  It's a shame she didn't have something a tad larger, but he'll be a guest of the gray bar Hilton for a few years at least.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

westwall said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



Any rational person would recognize that people simply _have_ to be able to defend themselves. And the gun is the ultimate equalizer. You can't ask a woman to engage in hand-to-hand combat with a man. You can't ask her to have a knife fight with a man. But a woman with a gun in her hand is every bit the equal as a man with a gun in his hand - because the gun removes _all_ physical disadvantages.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Is that so? 

So below are two tables, once showing the RISE in rapes in Australia from 1997 to 2007. The other shows the drop in rapes in the US. No spin just facts.

*Rapes in Australia – 1995 to 2007, the source, is the Australian Institute of Criminology:*






The following table is of crime in the U.S., including rape and murders, the source if the FBI unified crime report. The rapes are in BLUE:




 

This simple fact is Australia had a massive gun confiscation and rapes increased by half or more over the next decade. While the US saw a fifty percent drop in rapes while the number of guns owned by American DOUBLED.

Read more: Gun Control and Rape Facts


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




You don't have to....you don't even have to arm many of the teachers just a tiny number...and don't reveal who they are...you officially declare your school no longer a gun free zone and the shooters will pick another target.......

The gun free zone sign is a signal to attack to mass shooters.......just the chance that they might face an armed resistor would make them go somewhere else.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




I posted the research and what it said.....and it said you don't know what the f**k you are talking about.....guns are the best way to stop a rape...nothing else comes close.....


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Bill and Hillary seem to think so.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Yeah, i think most women have been indoctrinated to believe that guns aren't for them. They've seen it as only being a guy thing. But that's definitely changing. Women are all over gun ranges these days. I see men with their wives and daughters al the time. They really enjoy it. It's fun and it makes them proficient with their firearms.

I mean let's face it, women especially, are hunted by brutal psychopaths 24/7. They really should understand that. They are prey. I think many more are coming to understand that though. More & more women are choosing to defend themselves against the rabid beasts. I think it's great to see.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...




I mean let's face it, women especially, are hunted by brutal psychopaths 24/7. 

WHy are you bringing the democrat party into this?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I have a range about fifteen minutes from my house.  I remember years ago (about 20) men used to bring their female friends and family to the range.  The men shot up targets and the women were behind the glass watching. 

Today there are few behind the glass watching and women are on the range with their men. Years ago we used to walk right in and grab a booth.  Today, it's usually an hour or more wait to get a booth, and since that time, other ranges have opened up in the area. 

When you keep pushing people, at some point, the people push back; people who are sick of reading stories of helpless people being robbed, beaten or killed knowing that it could have been prevented. 

I never shot a gun in my life until my apartment was broken into, and I knew the people that did it.  These were dangerous desperate people.  So I bought a gun off the father of a friend of mine.  The people that broke into my home thought I didn't know it was them, so I played the game.  I told them I was going to wait for the MF"s who broke into my apartment to return, and when they do (pulling out my new gun) I'm going to get even.  

They left and never came back.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Well in fairness, not being a drunk slut could help a bit. But that being said, if you are a woman on a college campus, you're especially being hunted. Violence against women on college campuses is at an all time high. They especially, should be prepared to defend themselves. 

We live in a sick sick world. One can hope & pray nothing terrible ever happens to them or their loved ones. But the sad reality is, anyone could find themselves in a kill or be killed situation. It is what it is.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Oh no, i wasn't only talking about Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



A gun will stop a rape. Much more so than being unarmed and defenseless will.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



More & more women are choosing not to be passive victims. It's a rabid beast's worst nightmare. Women are gonna kill them if they attack. Times are changing.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




But "no" means "no"....right?


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I'd tell you to fuck off but I pity you, you are one dumb foolish piece of shit.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



"No" doesn't mean anything to a rabid beast. What he wants, he takes. All women should consider being armed in some way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



My daughter is ready to go to college.  She has two to choose from and can't decide, so I have to decide for her.  One is a gun free campus with nobody having weapons and no security.  The other is a gun permissive campus with some armed teachers.  

The way I see it, there is only one choice in my mind.


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Hey, i really do feel for you. Violence against women on American college campuses is at a shocking all time high. Sadly, it's actually become likely that a woman on a college campus will encounter a violent sex predator at some point. But i know you'll do right by your daughter. I'll be praying for y'all.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 10, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Really?  So Jesse James, Jr. heads into the bank to steal the bank's assets and kills the armed guard, you're OK with that?  

You're too dumb to have any discussions on the issue of gun control.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...




But what if they said "no" and really, really meant it......?


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2016)

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



They'll get just as raped and killed.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




No....you are the stupid one....not one thing you say about guns in this country is accurate or true.......your side of the discussion makes up crap....and denies the truth when actual statistics from the CDC and the FBI show how wrong you are.....


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Lawmen enforce the law.  I imagine that racist scum like yourself said the same thing about integration in the 60s.  Too bad, so sad.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


You're very angry over your inability to disarm me. You should probably see a psychiatrist about that. There are definitely some unresolved issues floating around in your head. It's not healthy.

And for someone who keep celebrating about eliminating 2nd Amendment rights, I sure have quite an arsenal over here _still_. "Too bad, so sad" (by the way - people stopped using that phrase in the 1980's ya dinosaur ). What are you doing about it other than crying in one post and celebrating something which has _never_ occurred in another?


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> You're too dumb to have any discussions on the issue of gun *control*.



Unfortunately WC, you're too dumb to understand that the American people (not you little liberals - I'm talking _real_ Americans) don't tolerate "control". And we sure as hell do not negotiate our rights - especially the one right that ensures all of the other rights.

The U.S. Constitution never promised security. It promised liberty. If that's too scary for you, then I suggest you relocate to one of the many socialist nations in which the authoritarian regimes disarmed the people. You should feel niiiiiiiice and "safe" there.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Lawmen enforce the law.



Law enforcement upholds the U.S. Constitution _first_ and foremost sweetie. Not that you would know being a typical liberal. The overwhelming majority refuse to trample the rights of the American people. "Too bad, so sad"


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Wonder how a rampage like this is going to be stopped once people like Candycorn and J4J achieve their utopia of outlawing guns and disarming law enforcement?

Why are there no calls by people like Candycorn and J4J to outlaw knives? Sorry forks - no more steaks or chicken! Only cereal, soup, and other things that can be eaten with a spoon.
Two People Killed, Two Injured In Massachusetts Stabbing Spree


----------



## Centinel (May 10, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a straw man fallacy, hasty generalization fallacy, and speculation fallacy.
> 
> Most on the right have been contriving and propagating disgusting lies for decades.
> 
> And given the fact that most on the right seek to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law, they’re in no position to accuse others of ‘waging a war’ on women.


When the several sovereign states established their union, they enumerated the legislative powers of congress in article I, section 8 of their constitution. This section enumerates the legislative powers that the states granted to congress. This section also contains no legislative power for congress to restrict the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the states.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wonder how a rampage like this is going to be stopped once people like Candycorn and J4J achieve their utopia of outlawing guns and disarming law enforcement?
> 
> Why are there no calls by people like Candycorn and J4J to outlaw knives? Sorry forks - no more steaks or chicken! Only cereal, soup, and other things that can be eaten with a spoon.
> Two People Killed, Two Injured In Massachusetts Stabbing Spree



Well first you have to outlaw guns, and then work on knives when they replace guns.  UK found that out:

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 10, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


----------



## 2aguy (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




No...the racist scum in the 60s were the democrats......the racist scum today...yeah...still the democrats...


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wonder how a rampage like this is going to be stopped once people like Candycorn and J4J achieve their utopia of outlawing guns and disarming law enforcement?
> 
> Why are there no calls by people like Candycorn and J4J to outlaw knives? Sorry forks - no more steaks or chicken! Only cereal, soup, and other things that can be eaten with a spoon.
> Two People Killed, Two Injured In Massachusetts Stabbing Spree


----------



## candycorn (May 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Lawmen enforce the law.
> ...



So the police officer who enforces the speed limit is upholding the US Constitution?  Oh okay.  

Lawmen enforce the law.  If they don’t they are fired.  If it comes down to doing their job or getting fired…shockingly, they will do their job.    We see it everyday.  Most cops (being human) probably speed on the way home at some point, turn without signaling on occasion, drive after having a few beers every now and then.  Yet when they are doing their job, they arrest you for speeding, turning without signaling and drunk driving even though they are guilty of the same thing on occasion.  

Sorry, that is the way it works.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> So the police officer who enforces the speed limit is upholding the US Constitution?  Oh okay.



Uh...._yeah_. They certainly aren't violating the Constitution by enforcing the speed limit. You get more bizarre with each post as you get more desperate.


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Ohhhhh Caaaaandy.....


----------



## P@triot (May 10, 2016)

Ohhhhh Caaaaandy.....


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 11, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Thank you so much for offering your opinion; unfortunately your opinion(s) are foolish and not based on facts or reality.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > You're too dumb to have any discussions on the issue of gun *control*.
> ...



I feel nice and safe; I never need to look under our bed before going to sleep, or making sure my gun is locked and loaded and secure in my pocket when I take out the garbage at night, or go to the mall or safeway shopping.  Do you?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Ohhhhh Caaaaandy.....


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You clearly don't. If you felt safe, you wouldn't keep talking about banning guns because of "gun violence".


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Ohhhhh Caaaaandy..... a man who accomplished more in 24 hours than you have in 48 years, and who helped found the country and design the U.S. Constitution said "*people*" and not "militia".


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > So the police officer who enforces the speed limit is upholding the US Constitution?  Oh okay.
> ...



Interesting…what part of the constitution addresses speed limits specifically.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Australia has tough gun laws.
They have very few gun deaths.

We have tons of guns.
We have tons of gun deaths.

Coincidence?  No.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Ohhhhh Caaaaandy.....
> 
> View attachment 74447



That is because most men are conscripted into the military and have the weapon as part of their service.  Afterword…here are the restrictions according to Wikipedia:

*Buying guns[edit]
In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 8 WG). Swiss citizens over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania (Art. 12, WV). The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:
*

*valid official identification or passport copy*
*residence address*
*criminal record copy not older than 3 months*
*For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (Art. 10 WG), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (Art. 11 WG):
*

*Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component*
*Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component*
*Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer;*
*Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component*
*and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.*
*This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holders are registered (Art. 9 WG).

Some weapons do not need a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 10 WG):
*

*Single-shot and multi-barreled hunting rifles and replicas of single-shot muzzle*
*By the Federal Council designated hand bolt-action rifles, which are commonly used in off-duty and sporting gunnery recognized by the military law of 3 February 1952 and shooting clubs for hunting purposes in Switzerland*
*Single-shot rabbit slayer;*
*Compressed air and CO2 weapons that develop a muzzle energy of at least 7.5 joules, or may be confused because of their appearance with real firearms*
*Buying Ammunition[edit]*
*

*
*Ready ammunition of the Swiss Army. Soldiers equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle used to be issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed can, to be opened only upon alert and for use while en route to join their unit. This practice was stopped in 2007.[10]
In order to purchase ammunition the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns. The buyer can only buy munition for guns that he/she legally owns and must provide the following information to the seller (Art. 15, 16 WG; Art 24 WV):[8][9]
*

*valid official identification or passport (and must be older than 18 and who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and must not be a citizen of the following countries (Art. 12 WV): Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania)*
*residence address*
*criminal record copy not older than 3 months*
*weapon acquisition permit not older than 2 years, or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years*
*This also applies for weapons which do not require a weapon acquisition permit (see above, excluding the weapon acquisition permit, of course).

This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holder is registered.

The same applies to black powder and modern black powder substitutes for use in firing historical rifles.
*
*

*
*A Swiss 100 gram black powder container.
The possession of the following munition is generally prohibited:
*

*Ammunition with armor-piercing bullets*
*Ammunition with projectiles containing an explosive or incendiary device*
*Ammunition with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run*
*Ammunition, missiles and missile launchers for military explosive*
*Ammunition with projectiles for transmitting electric shocks*
*Ammunition for handguns with deformation effect*
*Carrying guns[edit]
To carry a loaded firearm in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragbewilligung (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.[8] It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle, albeit unloaded.[11]
*
Are you willing to implement the same rules here?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Australia has tough gun laws.
> They have very few gun deaths.
> 
> We have tons of guns.
> ...



So is that because of guns or something else?

If you look at the chart (ask if you can't find it) you will see that Australia had just as many gun deaths and murders before the gun ban as after.  One change that did take place is that rapes in Australia went up 50% after the ban was put into place (scroll back to my earlier post 647 with the charts.) 

True, if you have more guns, you will have more gun deaths, just like if you have more knives, you will have more knife deaths, and if you have more cars on the road, you will have more vehicle deaths.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I use the ATM and what's that got to do with the post I answered about rape?

Besides using criminals who won't follow gun control laws as a justification for restricting law abiding citizens from having guns is naive to the point of mental retardation


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Are you willing to implement the same rules here?



I don't have to. The U.S. Constitution guarantees my *rights* without _any_ concessions on my behalf.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Are you willing to implement the same rules here?



Kudos on your cut & paste. It doesn't change the fact that they have the highest gun ownership in the world (nearly 1 out of two people) - exceeding the U.S. And they have a lower crime rate. If liberals would stop banning firearms in Chicago, New York, D.C., etc. - we would do. The blood is on _your_ hands Corny. Somehow, I don't think you really care though.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


The 10th Amendment. It states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people*". The states are _fully_ within their rights to create speed limits. The federal government would not be.

You know - if you're going to discuss this so often - why not just read the document? It doesn't take that long. Only liberals create 2,000+ page nonsense like Obamacare. Our limited government conservative founders created an entire nation and structure of government on about 3 pages. Certainly you can handle three pages, can't you?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Australia has tough gun laws.
> ...



Sure they did.  NOT!!!


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



So in other words…you cannot.  

Thanks.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



1.  I have never suggested, hinted at, written or said anything that any honest person could prove I support banning guns. * Thus, Rottweiler is a damn liar.*

2.  I have empathy, for the parents and loved ones of those murdered by guns; callous conservatives care only about their right to have a gun.

3.  Anyone who needs to carry a gun all of the time out of fear is at best neurotic, and more likely out of touch with reality.

4.  The Preamble is a vision statement, one which promises much more than liberty, to wit:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,* establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty *to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These words ordain (decree) all of the above goals highlighted, not just liberty.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Are you willing to implement the same rules here?
> ...



Got your dancing shoes on early today…..

That is what a “well regulated militia” looks like and what-do-you-know…very few gun deaths because whack jobs like you that think they should be able to buy landmines are laughed out of the room.  

Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could have.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Australia has tough gun laws.
> ...


You have to realize - liberals don't care the people die. They just want to ban an inanimate object that they were conditioned to have an irrational fear of.

More people die every single year in automobiles than by firearms - yet every liberal is happy to ride in a vehicle and none of them call to ban automobiles.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Cars are super regulated.  Safety inspected each year in most states.  You must carry liability insurance.  You must have a license to operate one.  Have built in safety features in many models such as collision avoidance, safety belts, and air bags. Cops set up checkpoints at random to make sure the drivers are sober, you have insurance, and are licensed to be firing err I mean driving.

Put those well-regulated implements into firearms and you’ll see a bunch of people feel a lot better.  

Would you mind?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



What a bizarre response (as I pointed out - that is a trend with you as you continue to be so thoroughly defeated). I didn't "dance" at _all_. I didn't avoid the question (as you liberals do), I didn't change the subject (as you liberals do), I didn't give a nonsensical response (as you liberals do). I addressed it head on and proved that more guns in the hands of citizens equals more peace.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




I addressed it head on and proved that more guns in the hands of citizens equals more peace.

Really?  

We have *more *guns than they do and we have *more* gun deaths.  


You’ve proven nothing except you have no idea what you’re talking about.  

Still think you should be able to buy land mines?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Cars are super regulated.  Safety inspected each year in most states.  You must carry liability insurance.  You must have a license to operate one.  Have built in safety features in many models such as collision avoidance, safety belts, and air bags. Cops set up checkpoints at random to make sure the drivers are sober, you have insurance, and are licensed to be firing err I mean driving.
> 
> Put those well-regulated implements into firearms and you’ll see a bunch of people feel a lot better.   Would you mind?



*Boom!*

Corny just admitted that gun control is all about *control* for her. She doesn't care that more people die every year in automobiles than by guns. She's just excited that automobiles are (and I quote) "super regulated".

Corny....I thought this was about saving _lives_ for you?!? At least, that's the lie you tell all the time. More people die in automobiles, so clearly your "super regulated" regulations aren't working (just like they wouldn't for guns).


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Cars are super regulated.  Safety inspected each year in most states.  You must carry liability insurance.  You must have a license to operate one.  Have built in safety features in many models such as collision avoidance, safety belts, and air bags. Cops set up checkpoints at random to make sure the drivers are sober, you have insurance, and are licensed to be firing err I mean driving.
> ...



If you submit the guns to the same regulations, I’d be much more comfortable about racist scumbags like yourself having guns; thats true.  As for “admitting”…there is nothing to admit.  Statistics are statistics 

Put another way, 

you ban automobiles, you have fewer automobile deaths.  However society needs them.  So you can’t do that dummy.
you ban guns, you have fewer gun deaths.  However some parts of society need them.  So you can’t do that in those parts.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > You have to realize - liberals don't care that people die. They just want to ban an inanimate object that they were conditioned to have an irrational fear of.
> ...



Proof that Corny doesn't care about human life at _all_. She cares about control over other people. More people die in automobiles but that's fine with her because of a litany of costly regulations (insurance, inspections, etc.).

And what an asinine list. Inspecting the automobiles does nothing to prevent deaths as it is the _driver_ and not the car that causes deaths. Carrying insurance certainly does nothing to prevent deaths as it is the _driver_ and not the car that causes deaths.

But all of those are costly regulations and that's what gets control freak Corny all frothy. How insignificant is your life Corny that you crave control over other people's lives? Get a job already. Volunteer. Find God. Do _something_ other than sitting around on USMB seething over the fact that your fellow citizens have freedom and don't have to answer to you.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Put another way, you ban automobiles, you have fewer automobile deaths.  However society needs them.  So you can’t do that dummy.



_Wow_. Corny sweetie, you are digging deeper with each post after you accidentally admitted that you don't care about human life and that control is what you crave.

First of all, who cares if "society needs them" if they are *killing* people? How many mom's and dad's had the heartache of  standing over the casket of their sons and daughters who were killed in an automobile accidents? How many little boys and girls endured the _unbearable_ heart ache of standing at the casket of their moms or dads who were killed in an automobile accidents? You are one sick and _heartless_ creature.

Secondly, society does *not* need them. The Amish have been proving that since the beginning of time. Just another in your long list of *lies*.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> *Cars are super regulated*.  Safety inspected each year in most states.  You must carry liability insurance.  You must have a license to operate one.  Have built in safety features in many models such as collision avoidance, safety belts, and air bags. Cops set up checkpoints at random to make sure the drivers are sober, you have insurance, and are licensed to be firing err I mean driving.



There it is. An accidental moment of honesty from a liberal about gun control. Not the slightest bit of concern for the more than 30,000 people every year that die from automobiles because people have to buy insurance and registration tags 

Folks....it was *never* about lives with liberals. If it was, they wouldn't celebrate millions of abortions per years. And they would focus on automobiles before guns since automobiles cause more deaths. It is about *control*.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Put another way, you ban automobiles, you have fewer automobile deaths.  However society needs them.  So you can’t do that dummy.
> ...



And the Amish are a backwards society that is dying.  

I like our society much better than that one.  You’re now stating that automobiles are not essential for our society and that you should be able to buy landmines at Wal-Mart.  

  As long as you keep digging, I’ll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  




​


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Liability insurance should be issued for each gun sold….a hefty 1,000,000 dollar “mayhem tax”…just like we have for cigarettes.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Australia has tough gun laws.
> They have very few gun deaths.
> 
> We have tons of guns.
> ...




Australia had few gun deaths before they confiscated their guns....and their criminals still have guns after the confiscation...they gained nothing from confiscating guns.

Australia is seeing an increase in gun crime........with confiscation and extreme gun control...

We have increased our gun ownership by 10s of millions and our gun murder rate has gone down.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Ohhhhh Caaaaandy.....
> ...




Wrong.....only military ammo is recorded....and please...explain how a mass shooter, with a rifle and a sealed can of ammo can't do a mass shooting if they decide to?

And how exactly do any of the above laws stop criminals if they decide to break the law?

Again...
Switzerland has huge numbers of fully automatic, military rifles in private hands...and a low gun crime rate.........you guys have no clue about guns....at all...


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Ohhhhh Caaaaandy.....
> ...




Please explain how any of those laws keep a criminal from using guns for crime.....?  

Please explain how any of those laws keeps a mass shooter from shooting people....?

On Swiss gun laws....

And more current from time...

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com

The authorities made one concession, though: since 2008, all military —* but not private —* ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers’ homes. The debate culminated in a nationwide referendum last year, when 56% of voters rejected the proposal initiated by anti-gun organizations to ban army rifles from homes altogether.


-----------

*One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — *and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.

Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. 

The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. 

*Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.*


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Ohhhhh Caaaaandy.....
> ...




To emphasize my point.......

Please explain how any of those laws stop criminals from using guns illegally.......

Please explain how any of those laws stop mass shooters from using guns to murder people in malls, schools, theaters, or churches...

Switzerland has a low crime rate because their people do not engage in crime....

*In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit *

Okay....a mass shooter would do this without breaking a sweat.....a criminal just steals their weapon....or like here gets a person who can get a permit to buy the gun for them...

Your point fails....

*Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania (Art. 12, WV). The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:*

Okay.....again...criminals either get someone who is a citizen to buy the weapon for them or they steal it.....

Your point fails again....

*For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (Art. 10 WG), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (Art. 11 WG):*

Okay...again....criminals will get normal citizens to go through the permit process....or steal the weapon....a mass shooter will just go through the permit process....

Your point fails...again...

Not one thing you posted about Swiss gun laws accounts for their low gun crime rate or gun murder rate or mass shooting rate....

Do you understand that?


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...




Guns have all the safety features that they need...how do we know....

in 2013 there were over 320,000,000 million guns in private hands....

Accidental gun deaths...  505


Accidental car deaths....35,000

Cars are not a Right.....you cannot levy a Poll Tax or a Literacy test on the Right to vote......you cannot do the equivelent to the Right to carry a gun......


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Yes...statistics are statistics....and you refuse to face them.....

357,000,000 million guns in private hands....in 2015

8,124 gun murders in 2014   70-80% of the victims are not normal citizens but criminals engaged in criminal activity or associations with other violent criminals...

That leaves around 1,642 innocent people murdered with guns.

Each year there are 1,500,000 million innocent Americans who use guns to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...


You refuse to recognize the significance of those numbers......and you cling...very bitterly, to your lies and half truths about gun in the United States.

Not one thing you believe about guns is true or accurate.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Yes....and when the democrats leveled a Poll Tax on the Right of Blacks to vote it was found to be unconstitutional.......leveling a Poll Tax on the Right to carry a gun is just as evil.....and just as racist...since the poor will be most impacted by any fake tax on guns......you democrats never give up the racism...do you?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

It doesn't, those are laws, like gun restrictions, that came later.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Maybe, but once again it's all about you and your rights.  Did you consider the costs to arm every teacher...


There you go, lying again.
No one mentioned anything about arming every teacher, by the state, or otherwise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Why do you continue to lie about this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> You're too dumb to have any discussions on the issue of gun control.


Irony so thick, you need a continental engineer to cut it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> Thank you so much for offering your opinion; unfortunately your opinion(s) are foolish and not based on facts or reality.


See my previous post above, re: irony.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


The lie is that it says Firearms,  It does not say firearms, it says arms.  While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords?  No, because swords are arms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> I feel nice and safe; I never need to look under our bed before going to sleep,


Well...  if YOU feel safe, then everyone must also be safe.
That being  the case,  why do we need all the mindless and unnecessary gun control laws you seek?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You're one stupid son of a bitch


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Australia has tough gun laws.
> They have very few gun deaths.
> We have tons of guns.
> We have tons of gun deaths.
> Coincidence?  No.


I see that among all your other intellectual shortcomings, you do not recognize that correlation does not equal causation.
Not really surprised - I just don't recall you presenting this particular logical  fallacy.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

In Corny's world....she would like to see this police officer brutally beaten to death. Thankfully our founders and conservatives are exponentially more rational than she is and this citizen's ability to be armed saved the life of this police officer.

Officer Is Attacked and Then Surrounded by ’40 or 50′ Teenagers. But Just When It Looks Like the Cop Is ‘Dead Meat,’ a Gun Owner Opens His Front Door.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


You stated previously that you fully understand the 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.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> The lie is that it says Firearms,  It does not say firearms, it says arms.  While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.
> 
> For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords?  No, because swords are arms.



That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear _arms_. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


It protects the right to Bear Arms, period.  What that actually means came later.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?


----------



## The VOR (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Isn't it against board policy to talk about a poster's family member?  You calling his Mother a bitch is also very unchristian like I might add.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

The VOR said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Good grief...go away ya old troll


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> It protects the right to Bear Arms, period.  What that actually means came later.



This is just a _special_ kind of stupid. It means _exactly_ what is says. There was nothing that needed to "come later" with regards to its meaning. Why the _fuck_ would the founders create a legal document with the intent of it having no meaning, and that somewhere in the future, people who were not in the room that day were supposed to "determine" what it "meant"?!?!

It's a legal document you buffoon. The founders could have written "muskets" but they didn't. They could have written "guns", but they didn't. Aside from writing "arms" in the U.S. Constitution, there are volumes upon volumes of original writings from the founders - all of whom clearly indicate that the right was reserved to the people (all people) and that it was for any and all arms that the government had as well.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 14227518, member: 50072”]
Each year there are 1,500,000 million innocent Americans who use guns to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...
[/QUOTE]

Oh, that lie again.

I'll put it this way. 

When you turned on the Super Bowl this year, you saw about 80,000 people in the stadium. Take that stadium and imagine 12 other stadiums that are filled too; same size. That will be 960,000 people. 

Now take those 13 stadiums and* DOUBLE IT.* 


When you do that; you *STILL WOULD NOT* imagine enough people to fulfill the claim of 2aguy that *over* 2,000,000 people stopped violent crime last year (and every year before that in recent memory) using guns. 

Here is yet another way to put it:

Giant's Stadium: holds about 80,000 folks. Here is a visual of how many people I referenced above....(sort of)
















































Forum rules will only allow me to publish 15 pictures....80,000 x 15 is 1.2 million folks. Still 800,000 short of the AVERAGE number @2aguysays used guns to stop a violent crime last year alone

This doesn't account for all of the previous years.

Nor does it account for the inherent lie that if the crime was prevented; how does one know if it were going to be a violent crime??? 

Anyway, it would take 25 Giants Stadiums to seat everyone who used a gun last year to stop a crime according to that moron. Didn't happen. Didn't happen in any of our lifetimes.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > The lie is that it says Firearms,  It does not say firearms, it says arms.  While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.
> ...


Your fight is with M14 and Ret.  They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.


----------



## The VOR (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> The VOR said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Hey!  Wait a minute!  I thought you said you have me on ignore?  LOL.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Firearms would be included in the "arms", fool


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 4.  The Preamble is a vision statement, one which promises much more than liberty, to wit:


You know, however ,. that the preamble does not confer any power whatsoever to the federal government.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

2aguy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Australia has tough gun laws.
> ...



And in about 3,000  (sarcasm) years, they may have enough gun deaths to be just like us.  I bet they can’t wait.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun?  It says, Arms, not Firearms.  Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Yes...  and when did the legal definition of 'arms', in the context of the 2nd, come about?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man?  LOL.

I love winding these fools up and watching them spin like tops.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I never said that, I'm saying the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens the right to bear arms...which included firearms and was most certainly the main intent...given muskets were the choice of weapons in the day


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


I would think so, and they thought so, but it says Arms, not Firearms.  Puddles is correct about this.

What he's not correct about is they intended you to have everything they had.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



It's stupid, you don't wind anyone up, we simply laugh at your unbridled support of the the left loon party. You're a fool and not to be taken serious


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man?  LOL.
> I love winding these fools up and watching them spin like tops.



The only person here that does not fully recognize you are only barely capable of outwitting a melting ice cube is you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You're on a fool's errand and not fooling anyone with the exception of Corny Candy


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it?  It says, Arms.  Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You're an idiot, you and your fellow loon Corny Candy can discuss this nonsense. Good grief leftists are ignorant


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it?  It says, Arms.  Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.


And so....  what's your point?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


The fools are the ones trying to say what the Constitution says, when it doesn't actually say that.

If you want to help Puddles understand why he can own his only nuke, you aren't helping.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I repeat, you're on a fool's errand and I have no time nor desire for you and your Corny little friend's nonsense.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it?  It says, Arms.  Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.
> ...


My point was made pages ago.  Stop believing that the 2nd Amendment means guns.  It doesn't.

And why we decided to stop with guns makes Puddles mad.  He wants what they have and the Constitution itself doesn't say that can't be true.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


You are the one doing the trolling, not me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


It unquestionably includes all firearms, and it always has.
What else matters, and why?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Here, now enough with your nonsense.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! [THREAD THREE]


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer[/URL]
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man?  LOL.
> 
> I love winding these fools up and watching them spin like tops.



Yeah...._right_. You are so frustrated that everything you have attempted for making your case has been shot down with facts that now you're just pretending like you find this amusing. The problem is for you is that your frustration is palpable my dear. If your'e going to pretend like you're enjoying this, then you need to do a better job of hiding your anger.

By the way, I have a friend who has a fully automatic Uzi _with_ a silencer. True story. I can't tell you how many people have claimed to us that those are "illegal". Because, well, liberals are just uneducated. Now, he did have to file paperwork with the ATF and get approved, but he did and he was. Man is it fun to shoot that thing. Every time I fire it I just think of Corny losing her mind like a typical unhinged emotional train wreck liberal. I'm thinking I might just take some video of us unloading an entire clip and post it for Corny....


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> By the way, I have a friend who is a fully automatic Uzi _with_ a silencer. True story. I can't tell you how many people have claimed to us that those are "illegal". Because, well, liberals are just uneducated. Now, he did have to file paperwork with the ATF and get approved, but he did and he was. Man is it fun to shoot that thing. Every time I fire it I just think of Corny losing her mind like a typical unhinged emotional train wreck liberal. I'm thinking I might just take some video of us unloading an entire clip and post if for Corny....


A friend of mine is a 2A defense attorney - he has several suppressed FA sub-guns.
If you can legally own a gun, all you need to get a machine gun is time and money.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


What matters is firearms are not the only arms.  And they weren't even then so when Puddles says, according to the Constitution, that he has the right to bear arms, all arms, he's correct.  That is what the Constitution actually says.  What that means is something else entirely, something the courts and society have had to work out.  

Don't impose an understanding that isn't there.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




No one said they did...in fact...I am the one who keeps telling you morons that gun access does not determine gun murder rates.....I keep telling you and you fail to understand that the values of the criminals...their sub culture and their attitude toward murder determine the gun murder rate.......

That is why in the United States...more Americans have bought, owned and now carry guns for self defense...and our gun murder rate went down, not up.

That is also why more whites in the United States own guns but commit fewer gun murders...while fewer blacks own guns and commit the majority of gun murders......

so you are wrong on that too........

It is also why in Britain their gun crime rate did not change after they confiscated guns...it spiked the first years after the confiscation and then returned to the same level...

Which means that their gun confiscation and extreme gun control laws did not affect the gun crime rate....access to guns did not change their criminals attitude toward murder.....and their criminals are still able to get guns.......

Australia......their gun crime is going up....after the confiscation....


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


For the record SIL, though honorable, the entire premise of this article is wrong. The 2ndn Amendment was not really intended for "self-defense" (remember, back then there were no violent liberals, no bloods and crips, etc.). It was really intended for the people to be free from a tyrannical government. If the people outnumbered the military, but had all of the same arms, no one would dare attempt to oppress the people.

I unequivocally have a _right_ to a nuclear arsenal. But for those liberals so scared, it's not a concern. At all. I've listed half of the reasons already. I'm waiting for a single liberal to make a logical case why I'm wrong (which they can't) to present the far more compelling reason why I'm right. The irrational liberal ideology simply cannot hold up under logic.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




There is a movement right now called Knife Rights fighting stupid knife laws in this country under the 2nd Amendment protections...swords would also be included ........


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


But, the understanding clearly -is- there.
The 2nd, unquestionably, protects the right to own and use firearms, and, just as unquestionably, does not protect the right to own and use nuclear weapons.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man?  LOL.
> ...



You should do that….I can see you now, envisioning mowing down minorities you hate so much in a van attempt to exert whatever manhood you still think you have.  Lotsa fun.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> so when Puddles says, according to the Constitution, *that he has the right to bear arms, all arms, he's correct*.  That is what the Constitution actually says.



Congrats! You finally got something right! It only took you 119 posts to not post misinformation, but hey, everybody has to start somewhere, right? Yeeaaahhh

(Conservatives - please clap for Jack(off)4Jill. It's very important to praise a small child when they finally get something right)


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Your obsession with minorities is amusing. I think someone either has hidden sexual desires for different races which she is ashamed of or she has a deep-seated disgust for minorities. Either way, her obsession with them definitely speaks volumes.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I'm sure the Criminals will make sure their policy is up to date.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That is not at all what is says.  The "understanding" is not there at all.  For that they could have been specific and they were not.  The courts have figured out what "arms" mean in this case.

There is nothing "clear" about this, you are imposing your understanding after 200 years of court decisions.  That is what's clear.

Puddles has a point.  He's nuts but his point is valid.  Arms means arms, unless it doesn't.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Nothing in the Constitution itself says you can't bear big fucking swords or big fucking knives.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Oh look...   more mindless nonsense.
Who would have guessed?


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




And yet communities across the country prohibit them....when they are also covered by the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Sure it is -- the court has addressed the meaning of 'arms' in two separate decisions, one of which precedes the advent of nuclear weapons.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



And if they don’t…well…tack on another 5-10 years to their sentence.  Meanwhile, it decreases the number of guns made (higher costs means fewer guns), it decreased the number of guns sold (higher prices mean fewer guns), and it increases the prosecutorial powers of the law.  

Win-Win-Win.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> You should do that….to exert whatever manhood you still think you have.  Lotsa fun.



Mmmmm....Corny follows me from thread to thread trying to get my attention. Now she's asking me to post video of myself shooting fully automatic weapons. I think someone has a _serious_ crush. Too cute! The thing is, you old cougar, I'm far too young for you. And handsome. And intelligent. And articulate. We wouldn't mesh at all. You need to be with someone who shares your values. You know, a typical uneducated, unemployed dirt-bag liberal who commits acts of violence. You guys can bond not showering and attending Trump rally's where you assault people and show your classlessness by dropping the "F bomb" every 30 seconds (the only type of bomb liberals like )


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




We can already lock up criminals who use guns illegally.....and felons for just having a gun in their possession...we don't need any new laws to do that....we can already do it...

So again...your point is stupid......and UnConstitutional....


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Well. I see. You don't mind having your fellow citizens rounded up and thrown in prisons.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Right, the Courts, not the Constitution.  Exactly my point and Puddles point, the Constitution says Arms, not what kind of arms.  Is everyone on the same page now I hope?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison.  For a very long time too in my view.  The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison.  Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery.  If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.  

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

We already have the gun laws we need to prosecute people who use guns illegally and to jail felons caught in possession of guns...

The calls for 

-registration of guns
-licensing of gun owners
-universal background checks

Have been shown to simply be ways that anti gunners can expose normal, law abiding gun owners, who don't use their guns to commit crimes...to criminal punishment for simply making paper work or clerical errors.......they want to be able to destroy the life of a normal gun owner who fails to meet an arbitrary deadline, fails to dot the "I" and "T" on a form.....and then they get to take the gun owners guns, money and freedom...


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Yes, they do because the Constitution say "A" and then society and the courts have to figure out just what in the hell does "A" actually mean?  The Founders were not specific.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




again....insurance is a Poll Tax which keeps the poor from owning guns.....owning guns is a Right.....

IF you want criminals who use guns to go to jail for a long time you are preaching to the wrong people......it is the pro 2nd Amendment people who keep telling nuts like you that our problem isn't normal people owning and carrying guns...but criminals with long criminal records who get caught commiting gun crimes and then they are let go....again and again and again...


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Oh no. I don' t mind Criminals in jail. I'd prefer a firing squad. Save the taxpayers some money. 

Why should I have to insure my firearms.

My homeowners insurance handles the loss in the event someone can get into my house, alive, and get into my safe and get my arms.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




Yes...they were specific.....you morons pretend that you can't understand simple english.....they did not plan on that ........


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison.  For a very long time too in my view.  The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison.  Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery.  If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.
> 
> You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?



Amen sister!!! A rare moment of lucidity from you! The only thing I would say is that you should replace "gun crime" with "crime". Whether a gun is used or a knife is used, a crime is a crime.

Does this mean there is hope for you or was this just some sort of anomaly?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


And, legally, in the context of the 2nd, what does 'arms" mean?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car.  It serves the greater good.  We have a gun problem in this nation.  This will, at least, help the victims.  Sucks but we all pay for it.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


If they were specifi they would have said what kind of arms, and they did not.

People, stop imposing an understanding that isn't there.  The understanding of what "arms" means comes from the courts, not the Constitution.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yes, they do because the Constitution say "A" and then society and the courts have to figure out just what in the hell does "A" actually mean?  The Founders were not specific.



The founders were very specific. You just don't like what they said so you try to pervert everything for your own selfish desires.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison.  For a very long time too in my view.  The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison.  Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery.  If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.
> ...



I’ve been saying it for 6 months or so….

Still think you should be able to buy land-mines at Wal mart?  

How about anti-tank weapons?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


For that you have to ask the courts.  The Constitution does - not - say.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...




again......are you sure you aren't brain....this is the stupid way he argues......like a Troll, but with less intelligence.....

Has anyone seen brain and this guy in the same room together...?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> [
> We have a gun problem in this nation.



For every gun used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
Your conclusion:  We have a gun problem.


----------



## 2aguy (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




We don't have a gun problem in this country as the actual statistics show.....we have a violent criminal problem in tiny areas of our inner cities.....

And you can already be sued if you misuse a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


And, legally, how have the courts defined the term as used in the context of the 2nd?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car.  It serves the greater good.  We have a gun problem in this nation.  This will, at least, help the victims.  Sucks but we all pay for it.



We don't have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem (of which you have no desire to address) and we have an automobile problem (of which you have no desire to address). Why? Because you were conditioned to fear an inanimate object (the gun), conditioned to love a considerably more dangerous object (the automobile), and conditioned to defend the most dangerous object (the criminal) - all for the agenda of a disturbed and failed ideology.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


It's the body-count, not the gun-count that matters.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

They don't understand that criminals are not going to buy "insurance" or "register" their guns.  Lol.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


You don't own firearms. That is an unnecessary tax on me. Nope. A firing squad will fix this problem very quickly.

I find it to be a reasonable remedy. A serious deterrent to those who want to use firearms in the commission of a crime.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car.  It serves the greater good.  We have a gun problem in this nation.  This will, at least, help the victims.  Sucks but we all pay for it.
> ...



I guess denial is not just a river in Egypt after all.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> They don't understand that criminals are not going to buy "insurance" or "register" their guns.  Lol.



No but when you don’t…you open yourself up to a longer prison sentence.  In a case like Adam Lanza, the liability insurance compensates the 26 victims.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I get mine from a military surplus depot.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



If you don’t own a car, you don’t have to carry liability insurance.  If you do, you have to have it.  Sorry.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I'm supposed to be insured. And to think I've been driving my half-track without it.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > They don't understand that criminals are not going to buy "insurance" or "register" their guns.  Lol.
> ...



That's not how "rights" work.  Lol.  That would prevent some people from practicing their right.  Getting it yet?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


We have a "gun" problem, she mindlessly stated.
Clearly, she means to relate the number of guns to this.
And so, for the argument to have any meaning at all, the number o guns must be related to the number of murders.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Lets go down the rabbit hole…should you be able to carry around a LAW with you the same way these boobs are carrying guns into Target?


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right.  Apples and oranges.  Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



So does the base price of a gun.  Should guns be free?  If not, you’re a hypocrite.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No, but the price of a gun is not imposed by the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> They don't understand that criminals are not going to buy "insurance" or "register" their guns.  Lol.


In fact, just the opposite -- they deliberately seek to restrain the rights of the law abiding knowing full well that it will not affect criminals in any way.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


More mindless nonsense.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I prefer a .30 M1919


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Right? We have automobiles killing more people and you're worried about firearms!


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


If 30,000 people were killed each year by termites, it wouldn't matter a damn how many termites we had, we would have a termite problem.

Logic seems to be utterly lacking here.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> So does the base price of a gun.  Should guns be free?  If not, you’re a hypocrite.



Yes! Liberals believe that a person should be forced to bake a cake for homosexuals even if it violates their religion, and a person should have to commit murder in an abortion even if it violates their religion, why not force liberals to pay taxes for arming all of us? How _great_ would that be?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...


Where does the right to vote say you need ID?  As a matter of fact, where is the right to vote?  

It's not in the Constitution that's for sure.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

The bottom line here is that gun owners who haven't done anything wrong are not responsible for the loon who abuses his rights.  Nope, and the government cannot imposes "taxes or levies" on one of our basic human rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Indeed.   When you develop a minimal capacity to use and understand it, let us know.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Some of you people really need to educate yourselves about our constitution.  You are totally clueless!  Lol.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> The bottom line here is that gun owners who haven't done anything wrong are not responsible for the loon who abuses his rights.  Nope, and the government cannot imposes "taxes or levies" on one of our basic human rights.


For something that can't, it's pretty goddamned good at it.

Maybe it can actually, in the real world.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


But my right to own ARMS is.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Lets go down the rabbit hole…should you be able to carry around a LAW with you the same way these boobs are carrying guns into Target?



It's so bizarre how you consider yourself the ultimate arbiter of all things. What makes these people "boobs"? You don't know them. Because they are carrying firearms (each one I notice has the muzzle safely pointed toward the floor and none of them have their fingers on the trigger). Just because you have fear of an inanimate object?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



But the gun owners and stores are preventing you from exercising your constitutional right….you should sue them.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Bear arms, whatever the hell that actually means and they didn't define it.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



Yeah, didn’t think you wanted to go there.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line here is that gun owners who haven't done anything wrong are not responsible for the loon who abuses his rights.  Nope, and the government cannot imposes "taxes or levies" on one of our basic human rights.
> ...



You should try living in the "real world."    Lol.  Apparently you are not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Lets go down the rabbit hole…should you be able to carry around a LAW with you the same way these boobs are carrying guns into Target?
> ...



Anyone could walk up behind one of these idiots and grab the trigger.  That it was pointed down will mean little to the person hit by the ricochet or having their hearing damaged.  

If you’re asking such a dumb question, I guess that makes you a racist boob.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Sorry that the mere sight of a weapon frightens you so much.  I'll bet none of those women get robbed or raped, huh?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



If you’re in a “well regulated militia"


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.  Try dealing with that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Anyone could walk up behind one of these idiots and grab the trigger.


How is this any different for a police officer and his service weapon?
Oh wait...  its not.
So much for your "point".


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> I prefer a .30 M1919



Depends on the situation YSW! Home invasion? Give me my 12-gauage Mossberg. Mass rioting? I'll take Barrett M468 in fully automatic, thank you (sadly though, that model _is_ outlawed at this time). CQC against one or two? I'll go with the LWRCI PSD!

No one size fits all. Each weapon has a specific design for a specific function. I also wouldn't mind having the FN SCAR-16 in my arsenal!


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



The sight of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting.  I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



How about the 15th amendment, genius?  Lol.  

 "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


In the real world, rights are unlimited. Only in the mind of the liberal ideologue are rights (and freedoms) limited.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> If you’re in a “well regulated militia"


Aren't you tired of lying about this nonsense?


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

We've a couple of Einsteins posting here this morning I see.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.


In he real world, the 2nd does not protect the right to own a nuclear weapons.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> The site of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting.  I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!



In other words, Corny is _really_ upset that they won't grow up being brainwashed to be liberal. It's hilarious to se how much that bothers libs. Go into any thread about home schooling and you'll see their heads exploding as they talk about how those homeschooled children can't be infected with the cancer known as liberalism.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> We've a couple of Einsteins posting here this morning I see.



Thanks Slingblade….


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Now we are getting somewhere.  Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself.  It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The site of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting.  I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!
> ...



Still think Wal Mart should be able to sell landmines?  Yes or no.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.
> ...



It actually does. Really. But it's just not a concern. No one will _ever_ have nuclear weapons, and if they found some bizarre way to get one, it wouldn't be a concern anyway.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



unless they are muslim…right?  Would you feel good with a muslim next door to you holding a detonator to a nuke?  Either say no or tell us another lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


You need to make up your mind.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


^^^
Mindless nonsense,...or... what passes for reasoned argument in the mind of an anti-gun loon.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.
> ...


Also correct, but that's not what the Constitution says, it's what the courts and society says.

Do not impose what is not there.  Puddles is correct, it says Arms, he's just not living in the real world.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has already addressed this.  You really sound stupid here, sorry to say.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


My mind is made up.  What the Constitution says, and what the courts who have to define what it actually means, are two different things,

Do not confuse the two.

The Constitution says Arms, and the courts say yeah, but not Nuclear Arms.  Apples and oranges, two different but related things.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

1996-2016 The Washington Post
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Submissions and Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices








washingtonpost.com > Nation > National News Special Reports > Supreme Court
» FOLLOW THE POST ON: 

 

 

 

 




» THIS STORY:READ +
*Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms*





GALLERY





Patriot's Day gun rights rallies in Virginia and D.C.
Organized by the group "Restore the Constitution," self-proclaimed patriots rallied in D.C. and Viriginia for Second Amendment rights. At the Virginia rally in Fort Hunt in Alexandria, many demonstrators carried guns intending to make history as the first people to rally with firearms in a national park.
» LAUNCH PHOTO GALLERY




TOOLBOX
Print

E-mail
Reprints


By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Tuesday, June 29, 2010


*The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.*


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Stupid are those who can't understand that what the Constitution says, and what that actually means in the real world, are two different things.  For pages and pages that has been the issue we are just now starting to get you idiots to understand.

Do not assume.  Do not impose reasoning that is not there.  The Constitution does not say firearms it says, Arms.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Man....I've been _very_ clear on this. But I will do it one more time for you:

*Yes*. Whatever the U.S. government has, I should have. They are not above me. In fact, they are below me. They answer to the people. The people does not answer to them. In what world did you grow up in where the subordinate had more resources and power than the superior? Is there anything about that which you don't understand? How much clearer can I make it for you?

Now, that being said, I think it's important to add one more thing. Under Bill Clinton, the U.S. government started looking at eliminating APW's (anti-personnel weapons). In 2014, Obama released a memo that the U.S. would no longer manufacture and deploy APM (anti-personnel mines). Their thinking was rational. That innocent children and civilians not engaged in any form of conflict against the U.S. could step on them and die. If the U.S. military doesn't have the weapon in their arsenal, I could see some discussions around eliminating it from the citizens arsenal. I didn't say ban it. I didn't say regulate. I said discussions. As in, make the case to the people why we should voluntarily give them up (much the way society has handled cigarettes).

You irrational liberals simply do not understand how to address this issue. You fail to recognize that criminals don't follow the law, so making laws does nothing to stop them. Murder is already illegal and punishable by death. If that doesn't stop psycho's from picking up a gun and killing someone, how will outlawing guns stop them?!?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> 1996-2016 The Washington Post
> Terms of Service
> Privacy Policy
> Submissions and Discussion Policy
> ...


Great, they affirmed the right to bear arms includes guns, a form of arms.  They did not affirm that when the Constitution says Arms, it means, Guns.  Guns are included, as they should be in this case.

Why not cannons, tanks, artillery, hand granades, biological weapons, and nuclear arms?  That is something the courts have to work out.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Now we are getting somewhere.  Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself.  It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?



It means *the right to keep and bear arms*. That is black and white, crystal clear, and easy to understand. My God man, it's a total of _seven_ words. If you need a court to figure out for you what 7 words in plain English mean, you have a LOT bigger problems in life than the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue.  Lol.  You don't really seem to know what is going on.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


What's going on is the Constitution says one thing and the courts say another?  When Puddles says it says bear arms, not bear firearms, he's correct.

Higher level thinking you seem incapable of, like legal reasoning, so just drop it.  You have to think like a lawyer and you cannot.

People, there is the Constitution, and there is what is Constitutional.  They are two different things.  Do not confuse the two.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Lol!  Why did the Supreme Court determine that the Chicago handgun ban was unconstitutional?


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You've just got to laugh at this one!  Hilarious.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Oh, you’ve been clear.  I just like making you look like a complete nut job as opposed to the standard issue nut job you always appear to be.

2 follow ups.

Why limit yourself to ONLY the stuff the US Government has?  I mean, the Constitution doesn’t place that limit on you so stuff the US says it doesn’t have in it’s inventory should be fair play then…right?  Sarin gas, hedgehog ASW, the old VC “flying telephone pole” anti-aircraft defense weapons.  You should be able to get them right?

Secondly, in your M1A1, you should be able to drive it anywhere as long as you don’t violate safety laws, right?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Now we are getting somewhere.  Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself.  It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?
> ...



It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend:  A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia.  It’s a well-regulated militia that they have.  And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored.  Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right.  All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things.  How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms.  Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound?  Lol.  READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please.  Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness.    TIA.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Stop laughing and start dealing with the fact that what the Constitution says doesn't mean that's real life?  Puddles can't get that, and you are too dumb too,


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



We are all laughing at you.    You are clueless when it comes to our rights.    Lol.  Totally clueless, and an angry old lady to boot.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I've read it.  In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you.  You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts.  Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like.  That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication?  Guns, like nukes, could also be banned.  Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month.  Post less, think more.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the courts.  They have determined that the right to bear arms applies to individuals.  Have you ever read the federalist papers?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


1. Where do your rights come from?
2. Who decides what those rights mean and do not mean?
3. Who decides when you can lose a right?

If it says that Congress can make no law against free speech, for example, why is some speech not protected by the Constitution?  It says No Law, not Some Law.  Explain that to us, if you can.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


The Federalist Papers don't change the fact that the court could rule either way.  What it says is Constitutional is, regardless of what the actual Constitution says.

How long before you get this?


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Like I said, you are clueless.  Lol.  

The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6]while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In _McDonald v. Chicago_ (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In _Caetano v. Massachusetts_ (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Says the person who has never even held a firearm.

My dear...how do you even know those firearms are loaded? If they are, how do you know there is a round in the chamber? If there is, how do you know that the safety is off? Any one of those scenarios and pulling the trigger means nothing. By the way - a round from a rifle is *not* going to "ricochet" off of porcelain tile. It will punch through that lie a good knife does through soft, melted butter.

Please don't try to present yourself as some type of gun expert. It makes you look silly.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I think the Federalist Papers would help you two Einsteins figure things out.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Do not post what I already know, and understand that you do not.

Really, just how dumb are you actually?  So far, you are a complete idiot incapable of any higher reasoning.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> If you’re in a “well regulated militia"



"The *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms". Sorry dear, it doesn't say "militia". The right _clearly_ belongs to the people know matter how desperately you wished otherwise. "Too bad, so sad"


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


If the Federalist Papers, I've read them, said you could beat your kids to death the courts say no, you can't, so they don't matter a damn in reality.  Interesting but not binding on anything the courts do.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Face facts, old woman!  We have facts, the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and over 60% of the American people on our side.  All you have is fear, myths, untruths, idealistic fantasies, and bullshit on your side.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> unless they are muslim…right?  Would you feel good with a muslim next door to you holding a detonator to a nuke?  Either say no or tell us another lie.



Another mindless binary liberal. Her brain can only handle two options at a time. There couldn't possibly be a third option in the mind of a liberal. Incidentally, how interesting that she immediately goes to "muslims" when considering the scenario of mass destruction. Kind of like how she keeps talking about gunning down "minorities". But then again, the Democrats have a long history of hate and racism.

To answer your question my dear, there is no "detonator" for a nuclear weapon. Even the president of the United State himself cannot launch a nuclear weapon. It requires multiple people with multiple codes. They are simply designed that way to avoid any one person having the power to kill so many and to ensure that one person cannot accidentally launch.

That was one of the three idiotic points I've been praying a libtard would bring up to expose how stupid they are. Now if they will only bring up the other two points - then this issue is permanently _over_. Tell me Corny, how stupid do you feel right now?


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > unless they are muslim…right?  Would you feel good with a muslim next door to you holding a detonator to a nuke?  Either say no or tell us another lie.
> ...



It's fear mongering at it's finest.  That is all they have when it comes to these arguments.  They never make coherent arguments.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Facts are what I have.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can't bear a nuclear weapon, does it Puddles?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


First of all, you have't read the Federalist Papers. That part is painfully obvious. Second, the Federalist Papers don't say it's ok to beat your kids, so that's a nonsensical point. Third, the Federalist Papers prove the thinking and intent of some of the founders.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Again, another stupid pointless post.  Lol.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


On the top left of your computer screen is a tab.
Align you mouse pointer over the tab and left click.
When the tab opens type in the word "arms" and read what it says.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Didn't we have a discussion about a well regulated Militia in another thread.

My how you forget so quickly


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

I'm done with this one.  She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".  

The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

This was one of the rulings by the Supreme Court . . . 

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people" ... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...






Now, care to show us where the Constitution says I can't bear a nuclear arm?


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> I'm done with this one.  She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".
> 
> The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".



No, that would be you.  You have a very, very poor understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  You are totally clueless and a complete mess.  Bye-bye now!  You can go throw a hissy fit because you are wrong somewhere else.  Nobody will miss you.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Very good. Now.
Do you see the word firearms?

That is the definition of the "arms" specified in the document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

You did very well today.

Class dismissed.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


There is nothing pointless about it.  The courts say I can't have a nuke, not the Constitution, right Puddles?


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer a .30 M1919
> ...


You're taking all of the fun out of the phrase kill them all and let God sort them out. lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...


The Constitution says Arms, not Firearms.  Do you think the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover knives, swords, clubs, battleaxes, etc.?

Prove it?


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

If you are going to argue about constitutional rights, please try to be realistic and know what you are talking about.  Otherwise, you come across a complete tool.   

Now . . . 

To address the idea of government imposed "taxes or levies" on bearing arms . . . 

(17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since arms have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be levied that imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly since the right to keep and bear arms is recognized in an amendment which supersedes any prior provisions that conflict with it, which includes all taxing powers except the income tax (which does not provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may be taxed as general merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax law which specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use fees for public services related to them, must be considered unconstitutional. That would include taxes on ammunition and the ingredients to make it. The analogy is to taxes on newsprint, which may be taxed like other merchandise, but not in a way that would impose an undue burden on the right of a free press.

(18) This means that no government has the power, unless that power is specifically granted to it under its constitution, to prohibit any person from manufacturing or possessing any gun or ammunition for it on his own premises or where he has a right to be, or against using it in a safe and responsible manner, or against selling or giving it to another person within the borders of a state.


To address the idea about what constitutes "arms" . . . 

*Arms*

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> I'm done with this one.  She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".
> 
> The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".



Just because you can't understand our constitutional rights doesn't mean I'm stupid.    Lol.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Where did I ever "limit" myself. I said if the U.S. government has it, I should be able to have it as well. I never said that's all I should be limited to. Reading comprehension my dear. Reading comprehension.

Help me to understand here (because you're clearly so wise ) - why are you not crying about the U.S. military being armed? We saw Nadal Hassan go on a shooting rampage. And I remember in the 1990's, someone took a tank off a base and drive it all over California destroying everything in site. Yet not once have I heard you scream to disarm the U.S. military. _Why_? Why are you so bizarrely inconsistent in your views?


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> I'm done with this one.  She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".
> 
> The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".


For 240 years the citizenry has had the right to keep and bear arms.

According to you that is not what it means?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > I'm done with this one.  She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".
> ...


I understand them, and how they are defined, limited, and enforced perfectly, dummy.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You are ridiculous to the utmost degree.  Please try to control yourself and stop making silly insinuations.  Thanks.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Apparently, you do not.    I've already posted for you what "arms" means according to the government definition.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > I'm done with this one.  She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".
> ...


Not according to me, according to the courts.  The Constitution doesn't say you can't bear a nuke, the courts do.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Firearms are arms.

You can continue to twist yourself into a pretzel Joe but you are still not going to get our "Arms"


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are?  If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

 Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



Too bad, the poster is getting ornery because we are destroying her arguments with our bullshit-seeking missiles!


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Because we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves and our property with the appropriate "arms" which includes guns.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...


It has to do with the fact that it says Bear Arms, not only Bear Only Certain Arms.  Are swords not covered, crossbows, how about big knives or Tasers?

It says Arms, it does not, and never has, defined what the hell those actually were.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

I just love to yank the chains of the those who will attempt to disarm us.

They think the Constitution is fluid and can mean whatever they say it means.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with anything.  The poster is desperately grasping at straws because she is on the losing side of the argument.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Should they just have said the current weapons of the time, subject to change as arms are developed?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Where does the Constitution say "appropriate" arms?  

No, it says Arms.  Puddles is right about that.  You assume you know what that means?  You don't.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



We have a constitutional right to keep and carry firearms (guns).  That is all there is to it.  You have no argument here.  It's already been argued in the highest court in the land.  Guess what?  Your side lost.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I'm going by SCOTUS statements on the issue.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...


Should they?  Who the fuck cares.  What they said was bear arms so how do you get from there to you can have guns but not nukes?

You have to think people, and you obviously don't.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Who is "puddles?"  Sorry.  I don't know of any posters by that name.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



You've lost, and you are a sore loser.  We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the second amendment in the Bill of Rights.  Sorry.  You lose . . . again.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


And that is what we do, in the real world, for those unlike Puddles but Puddles is correct, what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says are two very different things.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Nope, they aren't at all.  You are just making yourself look foolish.  Maybe it's time for a nap.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...


How can I lose?  I can't.  You have already allowed the courts to define what are and are not "constitutionally protected arms".  All the gun banners have to do is get the court to decide guns are also, like nukes, not included and the right to own firearms goes away.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


And so...?   What's your point?


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


God you are dumb.

Okay, for others, the Constitution says Congress shall make no laws on Free Speech but the courts have ruled that Free Speech can be limited.  How, in the name of God, are those not two different (but related) things?


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

J4J.

Allow me to dispel this belief that the Constitution does not mean what it says.

As one who has served in the USAF, one of the first things we were are trained in is Civil Liberties which acts as the guardian working for the individual rights and Liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantees everyone in this country.

I have served this Country honorably so that you may be guaranteed your rights as well as everyone else's rights.

Let me make this perfectly clear Ma'am.

I give you your rights because I guarantee your rights.

They are not up for debate and they are not to be challenged.

Get over yourself and realize that I will continue to guarantee the rights to all citizens and if you don't like it you may relieve yourself of your citizenship and leave.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


They will never go away.

The SC has no authority to change the Constitution and there will never be a time when you disarm this Nation.

And you won't get them even if you pass a law saying to give them up.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> J4J.
> 
> Allow me to dispel this belief that the Constitution does not mean what it says.
> 
> ...



We American citizens who appreciate and believe in our Constitution and our freedoms DO appreciate your service.  Thank you!


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The point is to understand that apples are not oranges in this case.  The Founders did not define what an arm is?  If you have a right to bear them, even if you could kill a million people with one, the Constitution itself does not say you can't carry that bad boy around with you.  That is something the courts did which means, in the future, they could also say, no guns.  Banning one arm is no different than banning another. 

You've already allowed them to define what counts as an arm in the 2nd Amendment.  In the future, that could be down to a soup spoon, if they go that way.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > J4J.
> ...


Thank you CL.

I get so sick of these people who think they can rewrite the Constitution and just arbitrarily take the rights of those they disagree with.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Excuse me. I made it clear. Our rights are not up for debate.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



I thought you were leaving this thread because you were getting butt hurt from getting such an arse kicking?   

Face it, you are just wrong about pretty much everything.  You don't understand the basic tenets of our rights or the constitution or the Bill of Rights.  You have made that abundantly clear to everyone.  Lol.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> J4J.
> 
> Allow me to dispel this belief that the Constitution does not mean what it says.
> 
> ...


No, you do not give me my rights, for that I have the Constitution, the Courts, and Lawyers.  You have been lied to, you believe a myth,  You'd be hard pressed to even come up with a war that was fought to defend my rights?

And just where, in this thing that you believe you defend, does it say you can lose your right to bear arms?  It doesn't.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The courts very much disagree.  All you have to do is look at the rights of homosexuals to get married.  The court has spoken and it was very much up for debate,  If the courts can say you can't have a nuke, they can also say you can't have a gun.  Nothing but tradition is stopping them.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > J4J.
> ...


We who serve guarantee you these rights.

How long do you think this Country will stand if it weren't for those who stand and defend it?

My rights are not up for debate. Period.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Who fucking cares about homosexuals being married. What does that have to do with my rights to be armed.

You can pass all the laws you want.

We will never give up our Arms and you will have to violate the Constitution to get them.

Plan on going door to door and killing everyone who refuses to disarm.

Tyrant.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...



Well, I have to go run some errands now.  I wish you luck in dealing with this obnoxious poster.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


I'm done with her.

Thank you CL.. Take care.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Okay, you can't think for shit either.  The Court defines what the Constitution actually means.  Not what it says, what it means.  They found legal abortion.  It's not in there.  They found birth control.  It's not in there.  They found gay marriage, it's not in there either.

If they can find it constitutional to take the right to bear arms (own weapons)  away from some, they can find it constitutional to take them away from all.  

You have to think like a lawyer.  Work on it.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

I don't have to be a lawyer nor think on it.

My rights are not up for debate. Period.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> I don't have to be a lawyer not think on it.
> 
> My rights are not up for debate. Period.


The hell they aren't.  They are up for the debate in the courts day after day.  If you were gay, you just got the right to get married.  If you were a felon, you might have just lost your right to bear arms.


----------



## Jack4jill (May 11, 2016)

What does the Constitution say?  And what do the courts say it says?  Two different things.  Never confuse them.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to be a lawyer not think on it.
> ...


I'm not a criminal.

My rights are not up for debate.

You can repeat it all day everyday.

My rights are not up for debate.


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.




If it was up to you dumbass Libtards it would be abolished.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 11, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



LOL, well, you do prove a few things with your obsessive fascination with guns:

You're a liar 
You're incapable of rebutting sound and logical arguments for controlling guns in America
You have a fetish for guns
You are paranoid
You suffer from a personality disorder (Nee:  a Sociopathic indifference for others)


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Come Jack(off) and Corny.....it's time to FRRREEEEAAAAAKKKK out!!!! Aggghhhhhhh! The U.S. government is implementing missile defense in Europe! OMG!!!!! People will die!!!! People will die!!!! What if someone accidentally launches a missile?!?! Come on libs....give us all of the panic, hyperbole, and fear mongering!!!

U.S. Gears up Missile Defense System in Europe to Protect Against Middle Eastern Threats. Here’s Why Russia Isn’t Pleased.


----------



## ChrisL (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



And you have the credentials to make such a diagnosis over the internet, I suppose.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Correct which is why Democrats are such a threat to our Constitution and freedom today.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.



To my knowledge, the SC has only heard arguments about guns and ruled on those.  They have not been challenged on nuclear arms.  

For that to happen, somebody would have to have been stopped by the government from developing nuclear arms without their permission, take it to the lower courts, and if one party or the other is not satisfied, push it through the court system until it gets to the Supreme Court.  

It is only then the Supreme Court could decide if nuclear or WMD's are considered arms and protected by the Constitution.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 11, 2016)

Flash said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...



Once again, BULLSHIT

Gun control would not abolish / repeal the 2nd A. and most of those who support gun control also support the right of the ownership of a gun for self defense.  

Of course their are some who want to abolish guns, and others who feel there ought to be no control of guns whatsoever.  Both are members of the idiot fringe; prohibition will not work, and a laissez faire policy of gun ownership will not either.


----------



## Yurt (May 11, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



so you're waging war on babies.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> I'm done with this one.  She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".
> 
> The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".



The only thing that could happen if Hillary gets in and nominates another gun-hating liberal judge is that they can rule the Constitution does not guarantee the right of guns outside of a militia.  

That would give the states (and even cities and towns) the ability to make any kind of gun laws they desire including a total ban on guns.  It would be here and there and not everywhere; mostly in liberal areas such as California, New York, Maryland and so on.


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




I am sorry but it is when the Libtards claim that they only want "reasonable gun control" then that is the world class bullshit.  They are lying.

You cannot trust any Libtard to be reasonable when it comes to gun control (and anything else).  I have given several examples in other threads where what the Libtards claim is reasonable  but is really bat shit crazy to take away the right to keep and bear arms.

One of the examples I have pointed out is that the stupid shithead Liberals claim that the SAFE Act in New York is "reasonable gun control".  However, recently a man went to the doctor because of insomnia and the doctor reported it under the provisions of the SAFE Act and the fucking jackbooted government police came to the man's home and confiscated his firearms.  How "reasonable" is that?

Liberals hate the idea of citizens being able to resist the almighty power of the filthy ass government and they will do anything to take away that power.

Many Libtards have called for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Others claim they don't want to repeal it but work to neuter it with oppressive regulation like we see in places like California.

If you believe any Liberal when they tell you that they don't want to repeal the Second then you are really stupid and naive.  Like the stupid Americans that believed the lies of Obamacare.

Don't give me the bullshit that Liberals don't want to do away with the right to keep and bear arms because that dog don't hunt.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 11, 2016)

Flash said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




BULLSHIT ^^^ complete and utter BULLSHIT


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.
> ...




And yet these fools post the very occasional shootings in other countries as proof they should have more guns.

To them, one shooting in a different country is the same as 30K gun deaths every year in the US.


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2016)

Here is a great example of how bat shit crazy these Libtards are and how their real agenda is confiscation.  

Ms Potato Head is leading the effort today.

Gabby Giffords: Universal Background Checks Not Enough, Legalize Confiscation - Breitbart

*Gabby Giffords: Universal Background Checks Not Enough, Legalize Confiscation*

*On May 9 — less than two years since universal background checks were hoisted onto the backs of law-abiding citizens in Washington state — Gabby Giffords was in the state campaigning for special protective orders that will allow firearm confiscation.*
The orders — “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” — would be similar to California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders, inasmuch as they would allow “family or household members” to petition a judge to order the temporary confiscation of firearms from another family member or person living in the household.

Seattlepi.com reported on Giffords’s visit to support the confiscatory orders contained in Initiative 1491. The outlet quoted Giffords urging a crowd of about 1,500 to support I-1491, saying, “We must never stop fighting! Fight, fight, fight. Be bold, be courageous. The nation is counting on you.” Giffords’s husband Mark Kelly traveled with her, and he explained that they support the initiative over legislation because it allows them to get around the opposition to confiscatory orders that currently prevails in the U.S. Congress as well as the Washington state legislature.


----------



## Timmy (May 11, 2016)

Flash said:


> Here is a great example of how bat shit crazy these Libtards are and how their real agenda is confiscation.
> 
> Ms Potato Head is leading the effort today.
> 
> ...



"Temporary confiscation " if a family can prove the gun owner is a dangerous crazy man.   What's so bad about this !?


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2016)

Timmy said:


> [Qvails in the U.S. Congress as well as the Washington state legislature.



"Temporary confiscation " if a family can prove the gun owner is a dangerous crazy man.   What's so bad about this !?[/QUOTE]

The Obama administration has said that veterans and people that believe in God are potential terrorists.  How can trust anybody that bat shit crazy?

You can't trust Libtards with any interpretation of reasonableness because they are bat shit crazy and will always be unreasonable.

The government should not have the right to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.  "Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.

Once we give these stupid Libtards the right to interpret who should be allowed the Constitutional rights and who shouldn't then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on.

What is wrong with adhering to the Bill of Rights?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Yurt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Liberals have been waging war on babies (abortions) and women (sexual objects) for generations. They've also sadly been waging war on freedom even longer.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Flash said:


> Here is a great example of how bat shit crazy these Libtards are and how their real agenda is confiscation.
> 
> Ms Potato Head is leading the effort today.
> 
> ...


Oh.....they mean _this_ Gabby Giffords?!?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> And the Amish are a backwards society that is dying.
> 
> I like our society much better than that one.



_Geez_....what a *bigoted* statement. Who are _you_ to decide they are a "backwards" society? Because they don't spread STD's promiscuously like you do? Because they don't engage in violence to oppress free speech like you do? Because they don't kill babies like you do?

Typical hateful and bigoted liberal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a great example of how bat shit crazy these Libtards are and how their real agenda is confiscation.
> ...



How does one go about proving such a thing?


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a great example of how bat shit crazy these Libtards are and how their real agenda is confiscation.
> ...




Ms Potato Head.


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Good luck coming to confiscate my guns. You won't see _anyone_ in law enforcement even attempt to enforce that were it to happen because the overwhelming majority of them completely support an armed citizenry and the few that don't won't feel it is worth dying over.
> ...



This......ah......this.....uh......this one is going to sting a bit Corny. After all, I told you so (then again, you've made it _very_ clear how much you enjoy being bent over by me in front of everyone so I'm sure you'll enjoy this in your own sick way )

Bottom line - almost all of the people with guns (and the one's that really matter) are on our side. They respect the Constitution. So even if you were to usurp the U.S. Constitution, Congress, and the American people and get guns banned through political activists assigned to the Supreme Court by Hillary, it wouldn't matter anyway. There is literally _nothing_ you can do to win this bizarre authoritarian fantasy of yours Corny. Maybe you can see a mental health professional about your frustration and outrage over being powerless on this issue?

Read the Letter 1,100 Green Berets Signed for Protection of the 2nd Amendment


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

Flash said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



All you have to do is look at the history of liberals to prove your statement.  I guess one of the good things about being older is seeing what took place in the past. 

I remember when liberals complained about cigarette smoke in movie theaters.  That's all they wanted to make them happy.  Fast forward to today, and you can't even smoke a cigarette outside in some places yet alone anywhere inside. 

I remember when the gays just wanted to come out of the closet......that's all, just let them be free.  Fast forward to today, they have forced themselves into our military, able to adopt children, and even forced states to accept their marriages against their will. 

I remember when the environmentalists just wanted to have lead removed from paint and gasoline.  That's all, lead is a strong and dangerous pollutant.  Today, they are trying to ban coal, put more restrictions on fracking, and even have EPA standards for your Fn lawnmower.

The history of liberals is clear.  They never stop at X.  X is just the starting point. Oh yes, sure, they will tell you that's all they want is X to make them happy, but don't you believe it. .


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Good luck coming to confiscate my guns. You won't see _anyone_ in law enforcement even attempt to enforce that were it to happen because the overwhelming majority of them completely support an armed citizenry and the few that don't won't feel it is worth dying over.
> ...



This......ah......this.....uh......this one is also going to sting a bit Corny. After all, I told you so (then again, you've made it _very_ clear how much you enjoy being bent over by me in front of everyone so I'm sure you'll enjoy this in your own sick way )

Bottom line - almost all of the people with guns (and the one's that really matter) are on our side. They respect the Constitution. So even if you were to usurp the U.S. Constitution, Congress, and the American people and get guns banned through political activists assigned to the Supreme Court by Hillary, it wouldn't matter anyway. There is literally _nothing_ you can do to win this bizarre authoritarian fantasy of yours Corny. Maybe you can see a mental health professional about your frustration and outrage over being powerless on this issue?


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)




----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

I know this is a bit off topic, but this thread has drifted into Constitutional rights a bit, so I thought I would throw this story out here about my state to demonstrate what some believe their Constitutional rights are: 

_*COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Planned Parenthood is suing Ohio's health department over a law designed to strip government money from the organization's affiliates in the state.

The funds, mostly federal, have supported HIV testing, promoted teen pregnancy prevention and provided help to new or expectant mothers.

Ohio's law is slated to take effect May 23. It would bar the money from going to entities that perform or promote abortions.

In a complaint filed Wednesday in federal court, Planned Parenthood says the law violates the organization's constitutional rights by denying it funding "in retaliation for" providing abortions. It wants the court to block the law from being enforced.

Planned Parenthood sues over Ohio law that strips funding

*_


----------



## Timmy (May 11, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



The same way you go about proving anything ! Testimony , physical evidence etc..

How any times have psychos gone on shooting sprees and we all wonder "why didn't someone do somthing !?"


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I know this is a bit off topic, but this thread has drifted into Constitutional rights a bit, so I thought I would throw this story out here about my state to demonstrate what some believe their Constitutional rights are:
> 
> _*COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Planned Parenthood is suing Ohio's health department over a law designed to strip government money from the organization's affiliates in the state.
> 
> ...



First of all, there is no Constitutional right to "funding". Second, Constitutional rights applies to _individuals._


----------



## P@triot (May 11, 2016)




----------



## Spare_change (May 11, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Cute question - intentionally disingenuous. "What house with four people, ages 34, 32, 9 and 2, of which two have birthdays in the month of May, who drive a 4 year old Subaru with rust on the rear panel, is located on the north side of an east-west corridor, the name of which starts with P and ending with K has a small pine tree and an aspen in the left side of the yard as you face the house?"

The US ranks 34th in national homocide rates (in 2013) Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) | Data | Table


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > I know this is a bit off topic, but this thread has drifted into Constitutional rights a bit, so I thought I would throw this story out here about my state to demonstrate what some believe their Constitutional rights are:
> ...



That's kind of my point. 

People believe that the Constitution gives them the liberty to get anything they desire.  While the Constitution never mentions abortion or funding to such places, I would be willing to bet that if it ever made it to the Supreme Court, it would currently be a tie decision at 4 to 4.

Further proof that the Constitution (unfortunately) is up to the definition of judges and not the actual words or intent itself.  It's all about the ideology of the judges more than the proper interpretation. 

It's also why our gun rights would be in a precarious situation if Hillary is elected President.  It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, it's a matter of what the judges say it says.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 11, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



So give me an example of what kind of "physical evidence" would show somebody is not capable of owning or using a firearm.  Testimony?  Very subjective, don't you think?  Testimony is an opinion at best.


----------



## Timmy (May 11, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Physical evidence ? How about a wife coming into court with a black eye after her psycho husband beat her up .   Throw in some testimony on how husband is being erratic and talks about killing a bunch of police officers .  

What would u think of that ?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> View attachment 74542



He has people with guns protect him because other people can have guns. 

I don't like guns. However if I lived in a dangerous place, I'd want a gun. That doesn't make my a hypocrite for wanting to be rid of guns. It means I fear other people with guns, and would rather not have to have a gun to protect myself.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Er..... not at all.

I use first world countries because there are lots of issues with countries who aren't first world. 

The US somewhere near the top of many rankings, like GDP, like size of the economy and so on. To compare the USA to a country like Somalia is just ridiculous. To compare the US to a country like South Africa is still ridiculous.

To compare the US with a country like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, which have the money to spend on social programs, which have the education, the resources to deal with problems effectively, then you see what the US should be and what the US is not.

Germany murder rate 0.7
France murder rate 1.2
UK murder rate 1.0
Spain murder rate 0.6
Sweden murder rate 0.9

US murder rate 3.8

Do you see the difference? 

You can try and play little games and pretend that the US should be compared to Honduras, but the reality is the US has a GDP of $55,000, Honduras has a GDP of $4,800.

There's a massive difference.


----------



## Spare_change (May 11, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Chicago had a bloody Mother’s Day weekend. It was one of the worst spats of violence he city has seen since September. Eight people were killed, with another 43 wounded. In terms of people being shot, that figures has surged to 1,225 this year. The city is on track to have 500 homicides this year. So, while violent crime has dropped to historic lows, the Windy City, along with Washington D.C. and Baltimore, form the unholy trinity of urban areas that are responsible for the slight spike in homicides were about to have in 2016 (via WFB):

Three major cities accounted for more than half of the rise in the national murder rate between 2014 and 2015, a new report shows.

Though overall crime rates were stagnant in America’s 30 largest cities the murder rate rose 13.3 percent, according to a report from the Brennan Center for Justice.

The violent crime rate also rose by 3.1% in those major cities, lead by increases in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Charlotte.

Three cities were also mainly responsible for the rise in murders. “Final data confirm that three cities (Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.) account for more than half (244) of the national increase in murders,” the report said.

“Final data confirm that three cities (Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.) account for more than half (244) of the national increase in murders,” the report said.

Last year, Baltimore had the second bloodiest year in its history, with 344 homicides, just shy of the 1993 record of 353. The nation’s capital saw a 54 percent spike in homicides for their 2015-crime report. Still, even as urban areas see more crime, it’s no nowhere near the levels of violence we reached across the country 20 years ago. America is a much safer place, *except in these anti-gun, and overwhelmingly Democratic, bastions.* Maybe it’s time to make it easier for people to defend themselves.


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

Figures don't lie ... but liars figure.


----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 74542
> ...


Understood. And I appreciate your candor. However, at the end of the day, we have a Constitutional right to firearms and that's all that matters. If they are not for you, I certainly respect your right not to have one.


----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2016)

No matter how hard the liberals try, there are just too many real Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution in too many places to allow evil to prevail. Sorry libs, this is a war you can't win.

Meet the ‘Ultimate Badass’ Facebook Engineer Reportedly Helping Banned Gun Groups Behind the Scenes Amid New Firearms Policy


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Find a large US city with a murder rate LOWER than a first world country other than the USA. They do exist, by the way.

List of United States cities by crime rate (2014) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm going to do countries and cities of over 250,000 people

Singapore 0.2
Iceland 0.3
Japan 0.3
Kuwait 0.4
*Chandler, Arizona 0.4*
Slovenia 0.6
Spain 0.6
Denmark 0.7
Switzerland 0.7
Austria 0.7
Holland 0.7
Germany 0.7
Saudi Arabia 0.8
Poland 0.8
South Korea 0.8
Italy 0.8
New Zealand 0.9
Norway 0.9
Sweden 0.9
Czech Republic 0.9
UK 1.0
Qatar 1.1
Croatia 1.1
Ireland 1.1
Australia 1.1
*Henderson, Nevada 1.1*
France 1.2
Portugal 1.3
Slovakia 1.4
*Plano, Texas 1.4*
Canada 1.4
Finland 1.7
Israel 1.8
Belgium 1.8
*San Diego, California 2.3*

Yep, there are 2 cities in the US above 250,000 people with a murder rate lower than Canada's.


----------



## Gracie (May 12, 2016)




----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> No matter how hard the liberals try, there are just too many real Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution in too many places to allow evil to prevail. Sorry libs, this is a war you can't win.
> 
> Meet the ‘Ultimate Badass’ Facebook Engineer Reportedly Helping Banned Gun Groups Behind the Scenes Amid New Firearms Policy



Yeah, respect the US Constitution, except when it demands equality for all, woopsie, we missed that bit, didn't we?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> View attachment 74558



So, if my right to be equal, why do I need a license to get married?


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 12, 2016)

Flash said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > [Qvails in the U.S. Congress as well as the Washington state legislature.
> ...



The Obama administration has said that veterans and people that believe in God are potential terrorists.  How can trust anybody that bat shit crazy?

You can't trust Libtards with any interpretation of reasonableness because they are bat shit crazy and will always be unreasonable.

The government should not have the right to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.  "Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.

Once we give these stupid Libtards the right to interpret who should be allowed the Constitutional rights and who shouldn't then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on.

What is wrong with adhering to the Bill of Rights?[/QUOTE]

So you support COTUS, do you?  How about all those amendments the far right seeks to have repealed?  You do understand that the Bill of Rights and all the amendments are part of COTUS,  I hope.

So why does your side claim the income tax is theft; that Sec. 1 of the 14th creates anchor babies, not citizens, and seeks its repeal?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Obama administration has said that veterans and people that believe in God are potential terrorists.  How can trust anybody that bat shit crazy?
> 
> You can't trust Libtards with any interpretation of reasonableness because they are bat shit crazy and will always be unreasonable.
> 
> ...




Yeah, no veteran has ever been a terrorist. Name ONE terrorist who has ever been a terrorist. Name one veteran who has ever blown up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Name one veteran who's ever planted a bomb in Oklahoma. Name one veteran who ever set off a bomb killing 168 people, name one veteran who killed people in 1995. Come on, I bet you can't.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 12, 2016)

I believe in the second amendment but it would be insane not to limit fire arms to the crazy people. Lets go to mars!


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


People kill... Not firearms. Dumbass


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Wow, insults. Did no one tell you I don't do insulters?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I believe in the second amendment but it would be insane not to limit fire arms to the crazy people. Lets go to mars!



You believe in it? Like, you believe it exists?


----------



## there4eyeM (May 12, 2016)

From the AP:
"DETROIT — Police say a young Detroit girl who found a gun under her grandmother's pillow accidentally shot herself and died.

Police say the girl was 4 years old, but relatives at the scene said Mariah Davis was 5.

Sgt. Michael Woody says officers responded to the home around midnight Tuesday. The girl's grandparents were elsewhere in the house at the time of the shooting. Two other children weren't injured.

Assistant Police Chief Steve Dolunt says guns should be unloaded or secured with a child lock. He says Mariah's death is "sad and tragic" and could have been prevented.

Police Cmdr. Jacqueline Pritchett says charges are possible. She says she felt "sick" in her heart when she got the call."

This just happened.
Irresponsible firearm ownership. Criminal negligence. Indefensible, totally avoidable.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> From the AP:
> "DETROIT — Police say a young Detroit girl who found a gun under her grandmother's pillow accidentally shot herself and died.
> 
> Police say the girl was 4 years old, but relatives at the scene said Mariah Davis was 5.
> ...



Guns don't kill people, little children do, I sawed it in a docuwmentuhrary on BB2.....


----------



## MisterBeale (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > From the AP:
> ...


I'm sure the video games, TV, and movies aren't helping any either  . . . . . 


But it sure as hell isn't the guns.  We've always had the 2nd.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> From the AP:
> "DETROIT — Police say a young Detroit girl who found a gun under her grandmother's pillow accidentally shot herself and died.
> 
> Police say the girl was 4 years old, but relatives at the scene said Mariah Davis was 5.
> ...


Was the gun legal?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...




Like I've said. People with guns are far more likely to kill than people without guns. 

The fact that there are only 2 cities in the US above 250,000 people with lower murders than most of the first world, suggests that guns ARE a problem in society.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


Actually mass shooting sprees are pretty rare they just get lots of press

And there are and always have been procedures for getting someone committed


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Then explain why more people are killed with fists and feet than by all rifles shotguns combined


----------



## IsaacNewton (May 12, 2016)

There is a bizarre fascination by some here with people getting harmed or killed. They comb the news for any act of misery on Earth that they can find.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



Hear say is not allowed in court.  
If he assaulted his wife he should be thrown in jail


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> There is a bizarre fascination by some here with people getting harmed or killed. They comb the news for any act of misery on Earth that they can find.


You do know the bad acts of one person with a gun is proof that all gun owners are killers waiting to go on a shooting spree don't you?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



We have seen an increase in gun ownership and a steady decrease in homicides and violent crimes overall over the past decade in fact violent crime is the lowest it's been in 40 years why is that do you think?

If guns truly are a causation of the high murder rates shouldn't we be seeing an increase in murder and crime in general?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



How many people own rifles and shotguns in the USA? 
When ALL GUNS, seeing as we're talking about guns, are taken into account, then we have a lot more murders than anything else combined.

FastStats
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2014

In 2011 there were 11,203 firearm homicides.
In 2011 there were 14,661 murders. 

I make that 76.4% of all murders are committed with firearms. 3/4

Now, funny you'd mention this, because the US murder rate is 4 times larger than the UK murder rate. 

3.5 was the firearm homicide rate. This means the US murder rate was 4.66666 per 100,000. 

The UK murder rate is 1.0

So, the UK murder rate is slightly lower than the US non-firearm murder rate.

Coincidence?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > There is a bizarre fascination by some here with people getting harmed or killed. They comb the news for any act of misery on Earth that they can find.
> ...



Oh please. We're not talking about all gun owners being guilty. 

What we're talking about is guns in society and the impact guns, in the hands of humans, have on society. 

You can wriggle and squirm all you like, but the impact is clearly there.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's because of gun ownership. Maybe it's because people are wealthier and crime has been moved to certain parts of town where people are left to rot away from everyone else. 

Had gun ownership gone done, perhaps crime would also have gone down. 

What about crime rates in the rest of the world? Have they gone down with more or less gun ownership?

You're making a claim, yet it's such a flimsy remark, it's almost pointless.







UK crime rates have dropped since 1996, in 1997 stricter gun control was put in place due to the Dunblaine School Massacre (where Jamie Murray was at, at the time) 

So, saying that guns have reduced crime, is a little far fetched, don't you thunkt?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I can't find a stat on how many people own rifles and shotguns but from my personal experience over the past 30 years everyone who I know who owns guns has rifles and shot guns some have handguns and some don't

We also know that the UK doesn't call a death a murder unless there is a conviction. So there is that to deal with as well.

We have also seen an increase in gun ownership over the last decade and a decrease in murder and violent crime

Coincidence?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



But you argue that the number of guns increases the murder rate.  So that seems to be false

And I never said guns have reduced crime I am saying that the increase in gun ownership and the decrease in murders and violent crimes contradicts your assertion that more guns = more murders


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



Since most guns are in the hands of people who will never kill anyone with them they have very little effect on society.


----------



## Flash (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how hard the liberals try, there are just too many real Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution in too many places to allow evil to prevail. Sorry libs, this is a war you can't win.
> ...




Constitutional rights are designed to protect equal opportunity.  The protection of the law to allow a person to succeed or fail.

However, you Libtards have defined "equally" as equal outcome and that is absolutely wrong.

For instance, where were you when Obama was using the force of government with the IRS to disenfranchise the Tea Party?  You sure as hell didn't support equality then, did you?


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Obama administration has said that veterans and people that believe in God are potential terrorists.  How can trust anybody that bat shit crazy?
> ...



The post you've referenced as mine was actually posted by Flash in 954 above, my response to him in
#985 is thus:

"So you support COTUS, do you? How about all those amendments the far right seeks to have repealed? You do understand that the Bill of Rights and all the amendments are part of COTUS, I hope.

"So why does your side claim the income tax is theft; that Sec. 1 of the 14th creates anchor babies, not citizens, and seeks its repeal?"

I could have added other amendments (direct election of Senators, for example) that the right wingers want to see repealed.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Of course, that's both true and obvious.  To expand on the obvious most gun owners obey gun laws - some don't and they are the most likely to claim the 2nd A. is the only gun law that matters, and any law which infringes on a persons right to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control is one which violates COTUS.  Of course a non biased reading of Heller (and the 2nd) is evidence that even Scalia understood the 2nd had limitations.


----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2016)

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Standing ovation....


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


The "guns" can not kill on their own...


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You know the US doesn't call a death a murder unless there's a conviction, do you? Prove it.

Also, again, what do shotguns have to do with anything of this.

Yes, coincidence. There has been a reduction in murder and violent crime in the UK and not an increase in gun ownership. So, all you have is that there's a coincidence, which doesn't tally anyway because other countries have seen similar drops in crime without increase in gun ownership. 

So, basically you have nothing other than what you feel. Great.


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


In rural America firearms outnumber people many, many times over... The lowest crime rates are in rural areas. People kill people, firearms in law abiding hands have nothing to do with violent crimes. 
You control freaks are delusional...


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US. 

Numbers don't necessarily matter. Like people say, people kill people, not guns. You have the people and the guns, you have a murder rate 4 or 5 time higher. If you just have the people, then it will be much lower. 

Contradicts something that I didn't actually say. 

Even within the USA, more gun ownership doesn't lead to higher murder rates necessarily. There are plenty of factors to take into consideration. 

The US has another issue which causes more murders, and that's a political system full of people reaping the rewards and doing nothing.


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Rural areas have many, many more guns than people and less crime...


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Not necessarily. 

Firstly, guns being readily available has a big impact. Criminals get guns from bad deals, from stealing from law abiding people and so on. There are consequences to guns being so easily bought and obtained.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



They do. However, as I've said in other areas, there are a lot more factors than just people with guns. 

However in the UK there are rural areas too, and in all the other countries. 

Cities are the main problem. But cities have guns too.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You don't even know my position on this whole thing. You're just jumping to conclusions. And then trying to insult. And it's not the first time. Maybe you should learn to make an argument and not insult.


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Cities are controlled by progressives and have the strictest "gun" control laws...


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Gee criminals break the laws.

None of us knew that.

FYI all of us here who support the second are for draconian punishments for any gun crime


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


The pro gun-control nutters try to distort the numbers in their favor by putting homicides, suicides and accidental deaths all in the same category... That's called lying.
The fact remains more "gun control" does not reduce crime numbers… in this country.
What fucked up socialist countries do is irrelevant here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 12, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


As the desert said to the grain of sand.


> You're incapable of rebutting sound and logical arguments for controlling guns in America


As the ocean said to the raindrop


> You have a fetish for guns
> You are paranoid
> You suffer from a personality disorder (Nee:  a Sociopathic indifference for others)


Ad hom:  the final resting place of those who know they have nothing worthwhile to say.

Thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 12, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Once again, BULLSHIT
> Gun control would not abolish / repeal the 2nd A. and most of those who support gun control also support the right of the ownership of a gun for self defense.


But, as you know, the mindless, meaningless, unnecessary and ineffective gun control you seek, by its very nature, infringes on the right to arms and therefore violate the 2nd.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 12, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> BULLSHIT ^^^ complete and utter BULLSHIT


Funny how you think this is a meaningful rebuttal to a sound argument against additional gun control laws in the US.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 12, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


Unquestionably - and proven to the world by virtually every one of your posts.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 12, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I believe in the second amendment but it would be insane not to limit fire arms to the crazy people. Lets go to mars!


Good thing this is already covered by state and federal law.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 12, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Of course, that's both true and obvious.  To expand on the obvious most gun owners obey gun laws -* some don't and they are the most likely to claim the 2nd A. is the only gun law that matters*...


This is, of course, a lie.



> and any law which infringes on a persons right to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control is one which violates COTUS.


This is, of course, true - every law that infringes in the RKBA violates the constitution. just as every law that abridges free speech violates the constitution.



> Of course a non biased reading of Heller (and the 2nd) is evidence that even Scalia understood the 2nd had limitations.


No one has argued otherwise.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Better look at your chart a little closer.  Looks like crime rates were lower than today in 1981 long before the gun ban.


----------



## Timmy (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .


----------



## Flash (May 12, 2016)

Here is a great example of how unreasonable the filthy ass Libtards are when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

This proposed legislation will make it virtually impossible to operate a legal gun store in the state of illinois.

You can't ever trust Liberals to be reasonable.

Those incompetent, corrupt and stupid Democrats can't control rampant crime among the minority population of Chicago so now they are going to make it impossible for a law abiding citizen to buy a firearm anywhere in the state.

That is the kind of assholes Liberals are.

Notice that Ms Potato Head (Gabby Gifford) is the evil bitch behind this stupid proposed law.

Proposed gun dealer bill would shut down most Illinois shops

*Proposed gun dealer bill would shut down most Illinois shops*

SPRINGFIELD - Gun shops would have an array of new regulations that require expensive security systems that would put most of them out of business if legislation coming before the Illinois House passes this week, says the Illinois State Rifle Association. 



"Shops would be forced to deploy a long list of costly new business practices in order to maintain their licenses," an alert issued by the ISRA said over the weekend. "It is estimated that these new requirements would add at least $100 to the cost of firearm purchased from a licensed retailer."


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Na, not really.
Rural areas throughout this country have many, many more firearms than people. Much less crime...
You're Lumping homicides, suicides and accidental deaths all in the same category... People that Do that are boldface liar's. 
Lol


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

Timmy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Wrong.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Nope.....the British didn't have a high murder rate before they banned guns......after they banned guns their gun crime rate spiked and then went back to the same level it was at before they confiscated their guns.....

British criminals do not commit murder...they have as much access to guns as our criminals do, they just don't use them to commit murder.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




And here you go....





And their gun crime rate went up 4% last year .....and they are arming more of their police with guns....and incidents where criminals are shooting at police have gone up......just the last few years...you know...after they confiscated their guns....


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



UK crime rates have dropped since 1996, in 1997 stricter gun control was put in place due to the Dunblaine School Massacre (where Jamie Murray was at, at the time) 




And Americans have increased gun ownership from 320,000,000 million guns in 2013....to 357,000,000 million guns in 2015...and our gun murder rate went down.......our crime rate has gone down since the 1990s as well....and we have been buying and carrying guns more and more.......

Again...it isn't access to guns that create gun murder...it is the culture of the criminals that create murder....


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




In 1997 there were 200,000,000 million guns in private hands....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

In 2013...there were over 320,000,000 guns in private hands and our crime rate dropped....dramatically....our gun murder rate...dropped dramatically......

In 2014 there were 357,000,000 million guns in private hands...and our gun murder rate dropped again....

So....in 1997....200,000,000 million guns in private hands....

in 2013......over 320,000,000 guns...what did our gun murder rate do in that time....

-----

Murder by firearm….

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

And here is the FBI table 8……it is a great table because it goes back4 years to show the rates of decrease….

FBI Table 2004

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2008

2014 table…..

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

From 2014…..and I added 2011……

2006

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 and

2006 fbi table 8

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports - 2000

gun murder rate 1997 -2000


1997..... 10,729
1998.....   9,257
1999.....   8,480
2000.....   8,493
2001.....   8,719
2002...     9,369
2003....    9,638
2004.....   9,385
2005....  10,158
2006....   10,225
2007         10,129
2008--         9,528
2009--        9,199
2010-          8,874
2011--         8,653
2012--         8,897
2013--         8,454
2014--         8,124


Not one thing you believe about guns is true or accurate......


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




But...the British homicide rate is up 14%....their gun crime rate is up 4%.......after they confiscated guns...

Homicides in England and Wales up 14%

The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester. The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.

Allow me to repeat that..........

*The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.*

They confiscated their guns...remember....this should not be possible...according to you....


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




And another look at what you say should not be possible...and should not be happening....

Violent crime jumps 27 per cent in new figures released by the Office for National Statistics


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Yes....you can't use a gun to commit a crime.....you can't own a gun as a felon.....

Those are limitations......you morons think that he gave you a blank check to enact as much gun control as you want to limit every aspect of gun ownership as you can think of......


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Listen, if you want to come up with points that a 5 year old could come up, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that sort of thing. 

We're not talking about a city that lives in complete isolation with the state and country around it. We're talking about cities where you can buy a gun in a different state and take it, without border checks, without your bags being screened, without your car being checked, and walk right into that city.

In Europe, well, this is different, because even though many are in the Schengen Zone, none of those countries have an abundance of guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



"Criminals break laws", well the law abiding break laws too. 

Criminals don't break all the laws, they break some, and they've been caught.

This debate is getting off the track of taking about real life, and reverting back to people throwing right wing slogans at me. I'm not dealing with stupid slogans. If you want to talk about this topic like an intelligent adult, fine, otherwise, no.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Prove it. Don't talk to me about facts and prove nothing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.
> 
> What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.



That is correct.  But on the other hand, what would happen if liberals were ever able to disarm Americans as they have in other countries?

_So below are two tables, once showing the RISE in rapes in Australia from 1997 to 2007. The other shows the drop in rapes in the US. No spin just facts._

*Rapes in Australia – 1995 to 2007, the source, is the Australian Institute of Criminology:*






The following table is of crime in the U.S., including rape and murders, the source if the FBI unified crime report. The rapes are in BLUE:







This simple fact is Australia had a massive gun confiscation and rapes increased by half or more over the next decade. While the US saw a fifty percent drop in rapes while the number of guns owned by American DOUBLED.

Read more: Gun Control and Rape Facts


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.
> ...



I take your rise in rapes in Australia, and your drop in rapes in the USA and then I add in Alaska.

Alaska is the rape capital of the USA, get a bunch of drunk Alaskan men together, and it seems rape just appears.

Alaska has a rape rate of 75.3, that was 2014. Put that into perspective, their robbery rate was 85.4, so for a woman, the chances of you being raped is much higher than being robbed. 

Let's go to the other side of the country. New York.

Their rate is 19.8. 

Yep, Alaska's rate is 4 times higher than New York's, and which has more guns? Alaska has a 57.8% ownership of guns. New York has an 18% ownership of guns. Clearly even within the US, it's not guns that stop rapes, but it might be guns that allow men to make rape so much easier, if they choose that route.

Now I'm going to add in the collection of rape crime statistics.

As wikipedia correctly puts it

Rape statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*Statistics on rape* and other sexual assaults are commonly available in industrialized countries, and are becoming more common throughout the world. Inconsistent definitions of rape, different rates of reporting, recording, prosecution and conviction for rape create controversial statistical disparities, and lead to accusations that many rape statistics are unreliable or misleading. In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics [1] and countries may or may not criminalize marital rape."

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A 2013 study found that rape is grossly underreported in the United States."

While in the UK

Women are still terrified of reporting rape | Jinan Younis

"we learn that more women are coming forward but that they are far from always being believed."

"Police figures released by the Office for National Statistics reveal that the number of rapes reported increased by 29% in the year to June. The police are quick to point to the growing confidence in victims to come forward and report rape."

So, rape rates increasing in Australia might have more to do with more women coming forward to report rape, and more likely to gain a successful prosecution for rape. 
And at the same time rape rates in the US might be dropping simply because people are ignoring rape in the USA.

I can't find it now, but when talking about this issue a while back I found that the rape rates in the US and UK were considered to either be close or the US's was estimated to be higher, even though statistics said something else.

Rape statistics are hard. Using rape statistics to compare within the US, as I have done, is verging on the edge of difficulty, does Alaska have a lot more rape than New York? Probably, it might even have more, but still it's hard to make these comparison, or even use these statistics. To go over international boundaries though, that's so difficult it's really not worth doing.

You have to look at what is being done, and in many western countries there is a lot, in the USA, there isn't a lot.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



And how does this impact this debate in any way at all? 

Back in 1066 when Harold was running up and down the length of the country, there weren't any gun murders..... so what? 

In the 1980s, gangs with guns hadn't reached the UK.

Yardie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A large influx of inner city Jamaican immigration to Britain during the 1980s led to the rise of gang violence or behaviour on the part of Jamaicans which became known in wider British society as "Yardie culture" and the participants "Yardies". The terms "Yardie gang" or "Yardie gun violence" were largely used by the British media to describe violent crimes in London's black community."

Basically the UK suffered from immigration from Jamaica, which due to colonial history, meant they didn't need visas. Yardies brought with them guns, this became worse in the 1990s, however murder rates may have increased because of them.

So, your 1981 thing has more to do with other factors, and we see a rise in guns during the 1980s and 1990s.


----------



## IsaacNewton (May 12, 2016)

People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'. 

When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Firearms used in crimes are mostly stolen and/or come from south of the border. No criminals buy firearms from gun shows dolt...
Gun Control does not work...  Lol


----------



## Rustic (May 12, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.
> 
> When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.


Fucking pussies like you Are music to criminals ears... Lol


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




The lie that criminals get guns from other states is why some cities have higher gun murder rates doesn't play.....Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than both New York and L.A combined...L.A. Criminals can drive just as easily as Chicago crimals and New YOrk is the same...yet Chicago has a higher gun murder rate.....explain that....

None of the anti gunner theories on gun crime explain the actual numbers.......the only hung that does is an understanding that different criminal groups murder more often than other groups and access to guns has no bearing on their willingness to murder....

As I just posted.....Americans increased gun ownership and our gun murder rate went down.......

Nothing you believe about guns is true or accurate....


----------



## Rambunctious (May 12, 2016)

my new scope.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Europe is flooded with guns.......that is why the criminals use fully automatic weapons....


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

And the lie about criminals going out of state and getting guns increasing the gun murder rate...

http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/the-trouble-with-brattons-iron-pipeline-gun-complaint/



It’s not as if suppressing gun rights for law-abiding citizens in New York has solved the crime problem. One of our neighbors, Vermont, is the closest of the 50 states to the constitutional ideal. For those over the age of 15, there just aren’t restrictions on carrying a pistol. No permit needed.

What’s the result? When it comes to the rate of gun homicides, Vermont is consistently close to the safest state, if not the safest state, in the union. In 2010, FBI figures put the rate of murders in Vermont at less than a quarter of the rate in New York.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You know what I love? I love people who "know" so much, and yet know nothing. 

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

"Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception."

(And funnily, it was people on the right who told me this first)

""Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said."

"Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf."

"manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun."

"Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities."

"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."

"Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen."


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2016)

Rustic said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.
> ...



No, people like you are music to criminals' ears, because you'll believe anything you want to, and thus crime never gets dealt with properly.


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

And of course the lie that the gun grabbers keep putting out...

Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?



*Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down*.

New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. 

Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000.* But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws.* Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, _National Journal_ (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming _had too few homicides_ in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. *Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer. *

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the _National Journal_ post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies _cause _lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




And how little you know......you just posted the argument why gun background checks are stupid....and why universal background checks will be gotten around the same way that current, federally mandated background checks are gotten around.


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

An updated look at murder, gun control and various cities...

L.A., Chicago Rank 1 and 2 for Gun Murders; N.O. Has Highest Rate



Overall number of gun murders:

1. Los Angeles.......................1,141

2. Chicago..............................1,139

3. New York.............................1,101


5. Houston..................................701





Populations of these cities 2010:

City Mayors: Largest 100 US cities

Los angeles......    3,792,621

Chicago.....            2,695,598

New York....           8,175,133

Houston......            2,099,451


----------



## 2aguy (May 12, 2016)

And more on states and gun crime...

Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws. This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets. A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation. 

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation. 

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)

RELATED: Mass Shootings and Gun Control For good measure, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.) And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

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

There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. 

These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do.

* Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.*

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

*The first major factor is race.*

Blacks lacked the government’s protection from violence through most of American history and even today have higher rates of homicide than other racial groups do. 

*Despite being 13 percent of the general population and owning guns at just half the rate of whites, blacks commit about half of murders, overwhelmingly against other blacks.*

Drawing on recent CDC data, the website FiveThirtyEight has reported that while blacks suffer homicide at a rate of 19.4 per 100,000, the rate for non-Hispanic whites is just 2.5 — “not so much of an outlier” in the international context, FiveThirtyEight notes. 

To the extent that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow affects homicide rates among black Americans, it prevents meaningful comparisons with countries that lack a comparably lamentable racial history.

 RELATED: Anyone Who Would Use Terror As an Excuse to Subvert the Second Amendment Should Be Tarred & Feathered Race is not the end of the story, though, because a rate of 2.5 per 100,000 would still put America solidly above most of Western Europe, where rates tend to be around one per 100,000.

 Further differences become apparent when, in addition to focusing on the death rates of non-Hispanic whites, we break the CDC data down by state, combining the years 2009 through 2013 to make the rates more reliable at this more local level. 

*Whites in 14 states face a roughly European level of violence, with an annual homicide risk of no more than 1.5 per 100,000. Confusingly, these states don’t appear to have much in common culturally. *


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



No gun law already enacted has ever stopped anyone from committing a crime with a gun

So tell me how would any law you want to enact do what every other law has already failed to do?

And FYI IF a person is law abiding they do not break the law since as soon as they do break the law they are no longer law abiding

The fact is that the vast and overwhelming majority of people who own guns legally will never even point a gun at another person never mind fire at or kill another

So you want to base any law that will effect the rights of everyone on what a minuscule fractional percentage of what some people might do.

My answer to gun crimes:  Life in prison without parole for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 13, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.
> 
> When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.



No it's more like saying forks don't cause obesity.  Or drinking glasses don't cause alcoholism

In the end it is always the person.  Always.


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> The fact is that the vast and overwhelming majority of people who own guns legally will never even point a gun at another person never mind fire at or kill another





I love this convoluted logic.

The fact that the VAST majority or car drivers never drive drunk means there should be no laws against drunk driving.

The fact that the VAST majority of IV drug users never OD means we should have no drug laws.

After all. There are anti drug laws and anti drunk driving laws. But do those laws stop drunk drivers and drug users? Fuck no. So get rid of gun laws, drunk driving laws, drug laws etc. They serve no purpose. Most druggies and drunks are law abiding. Most of the time.  And watch this country turn into paradise right before your eyes.

I know you'll agree skull.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that the vast and overwhelming majority of people who own guns legally will never even point a gun at another person never mind fire at or kill another
> ...



We already have laws against illegally owning guns Idiot

So tell me how any law you want to enact will succeed where every law on the book has already failed to stop a minuscule percentage of people from using guns illegally


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You're partially right. Some gun laws might have prevented murders, who knows? We can see into other dimensions.

Most of what I will talk about when it comes to reducing crime is about education, changing society, giving opportunities and hope to people, making people's lives better, and in this manner you can probably reduce crime and murder. 

At the same time, if the US were to go mostly gunless, then you could probably reduce murders at the very least, though I doubt that this would be possible. \

So, if I break a small law, I'm not law abiding? How many people do you think have never broken a law? Never gone too fast on the roads? Never J-walked? Never done anything like that? 

There'd be a seriously lack of people in the "law abiding" section. You're probably a criminal. 

Most people say a criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Wilbur Right said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



What's "illegally owning gun Idiot"? And why are there laws against such people?


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that the vast and overwhelming majority of people who own guns legally will never even point a gun at another person never mind fire at or kill another
> ...




Wow...this stupid argument....

Can you tell us who said we shouldn't have laws about criminal use of guns....?

We have laws that state you cannot use a gun to commit a crime...we support those laws.  We have laws that state that convicted felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...we support that.

What we don't support.....gun laws that do nothing to stop criminals and mass shooters which simply create opportunities to punish normal gun owners to the point of going to jail, and losing the ability to hold a normal job,  for clerical errors, and missed paperwork dates.

there are over 357,000,000 guns in the United STates.   there were 8,124 gun murders in 2014.   90% of those using guns for murder were convicted felons using a gun illegally, in possession of the gun illegally......and 70-80% of the victims were also convicted felons participating in criminal activity or associating with other convicted felons when they were murdered....

So 356,991,876 million guns in private hands were not used to commit murder...actually more than that because of the 8,124 gun murders, many were multiple murders with the same gun.......

So we are not talking about the Vast Majority....we are talking about almost all guns were not used to commit murder

Wilbur, not one thing you believe about guns is true or factual....

Tell me wilbur...with the way you post...do you think only cops should be allowed to carry guns?


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




At the same time, if the US were to go mostly gunless, then you could probably reduce murders at the very least, though I doubt that this would be possible. \

Wrong......our gun murder rate has nothing to do with access to guns.....Britain's gun crime rate stayed the same after they confiscated guns....and their murder rate in all categories is smaller than our non gun murder rate.....so it is their criminal culture, not guns, that defines their gun murder rate.

So, if I break a small law, I'm not law abiding? How many people do you think have never broken a law? Never gone too fast on the roads? Never J-walked? Never done anything like that? 

Wrong...normal, law abiding gun owners do not use guns to commit crimes...they do not rape, rob or murder other people with their guns....what you guys are advocating for with all of your gun laws is to create a situation, where a normal gun owner, who does not commit a crime with a gun, becomes a criminal for making a mistake on unnecessary paperwork, or missing a deadline for submitting unnecessary paperwork......that is what your gun control laws for gun registration, licensing gun owners, magazine limits and universal background checks do.......all while not stopping actual criminals...criminals who use guns to rob, rape and murder other people, are not stopped.....

Please...be more accurate.


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Wilbur Right said:
> ...




Felons cannot legally own a gun.  They have committed a crime which means they can't be trusted with a gun......normal, law abiding people....don't use their guns to rape, rob or murder people.....yet you want to create paperwork requirements that will put those people in danger of being a criminal for clerical errors and missed paperwork submission dates...........and if they break those arbitrary and pointless laws....you want to destroy their lives...by putting them in jail, making them felons, and hence unemployable, and take their money and their guns.........


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

Gun control in Europe, Australia, and Japan does not stop their actual criminals from getting guns....


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 13, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Tell me wilbur...with the way you post...do you think only cops should be allowed to carry guns?




No you dumb fuck. Everyone should be able to own a gun. Including felons. You think felons don't have a need to defend themselves?

You think domestic abusers don't need to defend themselves?

Everybody in this great country needs a gun to defend themselves. 

No matter what. No gun laws..no drunk driving laws, no.drug laws.

What business is it of your if a.person drives drunk? Does drugs? Has a gun?

It isn't any of your business..right?
Then why are there laws?


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 13, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Wrong......our gun murder rate has nothing to do with access to guns..






LMAO

Then what do gun murders have to do with? Knives?
So many people being shot with knives. Funny shit.


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 13, 2016)

2nd, you dumb shit. You NEED cons to have guns. Matter of fact you need all.criminals.to have guns.

How the fuck else you gonna scare some dude into buying a gun he don't need? 

Fear translates into more sales.
The NRA know this. Why don't you?


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> 2nd, you dumb shit. You NEED cons to have guns. Matter of fact you need all.criminals.to have guns.
> 
> How the fuck else you gonna scare some dude into buying a gun he don't need?
> 
> ...




So....yes or no....should only the cops have guns...?  Please answer like a sane human being......


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong......our gun murder rate has nothing to do with access to guns..
> ...




Criminals in Britain, Continental Europe, Japan, and Australia all get guns when they want or need them....and their gun murder rate is lower than ours......in fact, Britain confiscated their guns, and their gun crime rate did not change....in fact, it initially spiked, and then returned to the same level it was at before the confiscation....so Britain shows that taking guns away from people who do not use them for crime, does not effect the gun crime rate....

In Fact...the gun crime rate in Britain went up 4% ....and the violent crime rate in Britain went up 27%


----------



## Rustic (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Progressive source, no credibility. 
Nice try...


----------



## Rustic (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


The source of crime... People. ''Deal" with that, that's the only "proper" way.
Firearms have nothing to do with it. Silly dolt


----------



## Rustic (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Deflection


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that the vast and overwhelming majority of people who own guns legally will never even point a gun at another person never mind fire at or kill another
> ...








Notice how the laws you mention punish the criminal misuse of the product?  Not one law requires the banning of cars for instance.  We are all in favor of punishing the criminal misuse of guns.  Why is it the legal system always releases the violent criminals back out into society?  Why is that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 13, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


We all know you were incapable of an honest and/or meaningful response.
Thanks for the proof.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 13, 2016)

Timmy said:


> States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .


Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 13, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.
> 
> When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.


Move along...  nothing to see here...  move along...


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

The fear and paranoia of the anti-rights crowd is amazing.  Lol.


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> I love this convoluted logic.
> 
> The fact that the VAST majority or car drivers never drive drunk means there should be no laws against drunk driving.
> 
> ...



Talk about "convoluted logic". Lets start with the most painfully obvious - the right to bear arms is so important, that it was included in the Bill of Rights just to further ensure there wouldn't possibly be any infringement upon it (of course - our founders couldn't anticipate that there would ever be a day where people born in America would actually hate America, hate liberty, and hate the Constitution like libtards do - but I digress). So pretty much, everything after that makes your argument null and void.

However, just to take it further because I can - by _your_ "logic" - because there are alcoholics that drive drunk, we should ban all automobiles. Murder - just like driving while intoxicated - is already outlawed. So you're not comparing apples-to-apples here junior (typical of libtards). The real question is, if you recognize that drunk driving is a problem, why don't you want to ban automobiles like you want to ban guns?

Oh yeah....that's right....because you like and own automobiles. While you were conditioned to hate and not own firearms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The real question is, if you recognize that drunk driving is a problem, why don't you want to ban automobiles like you want to ban guns?


Because the people cannot be made subservient to the state until the people are disarmed.


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wilbur Right said:
> 
> 
> > I love this convoluted logic.
> ...



I agree with most of your post, except the "libtards" part.    Some of us agree with a little bit from both sides.  Does that mean we are also "libtards"?  I also don't agree with the "get rid of laws" statement.  They do serve a purpose.  However, the laws about certain guns and ammo do serve no purpose, when the people who would use guns to kill others are already breaking numerous laws.


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> No you dumb fuck. Everyone should be able to own a gun. Including felons. You think felons don't have a need to defend themselves?



You can always count on a libtard to resort to swearing and child-like tantrums when they get their ass handed to them with facts. Tell me Wilbur....what is your plan for law enforcement once guns are banned? They can only carry tasers?

More importantly - what in the _hell_ is your plan for the U.S. military once guns are outlawed? Are we supposed to fight ISIS on the battlefield with rocks & sling-shots while they reign down RPG's and 7.62 rounds from AK-47's at us?!? _Idiot_.


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

I mean, if a person is going to actually kill people, do people think a law about which gun they can LEGALLY use is going to help matters?  Lol.  That's silly.


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> I agree with most of your post, except the "libtards" part.    Some of us agree with a little bit from both sides.  Does that mean we are also "libtards"?



Well that depends. Is what you agree with them irrational, ignorant, and unconstitutional? Then yes, that would make those of you also "libtards". If what you agree with them on is rooted in logic, reason, and is Constitutional, then no. Hope that helps....


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> I mean, if a person is going to actually kill people, do people think a law about which gun they can LEGALLY use is going to help matters?  Lol.  That's silly.


That's been my point for decades. We already have laws against murder which are punishable by death. If that doesn't stop a person from picking up a gun and killing, why the frick would outlawing guns stop a person from killing?!?! This is why I refer to them as "libtards". It is a special kind of stupid which a rational person can't even begin to wrap their head around.


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The real question is, if you recognize that drunk driving is a problem, why don't you want to ban automobiles like you want to ban guns?
> ...


Bingo! We have a winner! And yet liberals will vehemently tell you that they have no desire to impose their will on others or make anyone subservient to the state. Yeah...._ok_. If you're going to have a disingenuous position, you better be able to mask it a lot better than what they do. It's so easy to see through them with their irrational positions.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 13, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .
> ...



The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco;  The population of California is 38,144,818.  How's is that for a contrast?

The population per sq. mile in vermont is 6, in CA it is 239.


----------



## Rustic (May 13, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


No one needs permission from firearms to kill people…


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 13, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> 2nd, you dumb shit. You NEED cons to have guns. Matter of fact you need all.criminals.to have guns.
> 
> How the fuck else you gonna scare some dude into buying a gun he don't need?
> 
> ...


I'm sure I could give you a list a mile long of shit you have that you don't need

FYI What anyone else has or doesn't have is none of your fucking business


----------



## Timmy (May 13, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .
> ...



Compare apples to apples .  Like gun nut arizona vs gun control massachusetts .   Same size population , both with a large city .


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 13, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


Only the pathologically dishonest or the criminally ignorant could believe that your response has any meaning.
The claim made related gun laws to crime rates; crime rates take populations into account.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 13, 2016)

Timmy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.


----------



## sealybobo (May 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


We are going up north with 2 kids in bear country in the spring when they have cubs with them. Imagine not allowing us to take weapons with us. I should get bear mace but nothing like a gun.

Also imagine people are trying to break in to get me. Or someone is coming over to kill his girlfriend. Imagine her not having a gun.

We just need to register guns better


----------



## Timmy (May 13, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You afraid to compare similar states, aren't you .   That's makes you intellectually dishonest .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, if a person is going to actually kill people, do people think a law about which gun they can LEGALLY use is going to help matters?  Lol.  That's silly.
> ...



The death penalty could be a deterrent if applied properly.  

Currently, many sit on death row for well over a decade before they actually serve their sentence.  At times, fifteen to eighteen years.

If we ever desired the death penalty to be a deterrent, all cases would have to be fast-tracked including appeals so that the sentence could be carried out less than six months from the time the crime was committed.

If we had the guts to allow the media to show it live on television, it would reduce murders even more.

But even without the executions being televised, we could probably reduce murders in this country by about 50% doing it my way.


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I'm against the death penalty, but I am for LWOP.  I guess I'm a "libtard" now.


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...




According to you morons it doesn't matter what their size is.....since they have gun laws that allow people to carry guns.....and those laws aren't as stupid as California.....Vermont should be a bigger hell hole than Los Angeles...and it isn't.....guns don't cause crime.....something you twits can't get into your brains.....


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state.  As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

States with tougher gun laws have more gun crime, not less......cities that have strict gun laws that make it harder for law abiding people to own guns have more gun crime not less.....


----------



## Timmy (May 13, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Because Vermont is empty .  No one even runs into each other .


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

Timmy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Nope.....according to you guys it should be a hell hole......just because of their gun laws........and D.C., New York, Baltimore, Chicago should be the most peaceful places on earth........


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

And here is a good point about why gun control does not lower the gun crime rate...

Look, Another Gun Law.. part 2- Why Gun Control Fails

Yes, criminals break the law.  That means the laws regulating guns and honest gun owners are ineffective.  Those laws don’t reduce crime.  Said another way, we can get rid of the laws on gun registration and crime won’t increase.  Criminals don’t take mandatory background checks either.  That means we can eliminate the laws on regulating honest gun owners, and crime won’t go up.  There is less here than meets the eye.

Read more: Look, Another Gun Law.. part 2- Why Gun Control Fails 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution 
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

I'm not necessarily against background checks because mentally ill people or people who are not supposed to have guns to begin with would then be able to easily obtain them.  I am against STUPID laws that don't do anything, such as laws regarding ammo and types of weapons and gun bans.  Things like that.


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...




And of course you are wrong......


Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?



*Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down*.

New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. 

Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000.* But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws.* Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, _National Journal_ (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming _had too few homicides_in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. *Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer. *

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the _National Journal_post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies _cause _lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis.

* Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.*


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> I'm not necessarily against background checks because mentally ill people or people who are not supposed to have guns to begin with would then be able to easily obtain them.  I am against STUPID laws that don't do anything, such as laws regarding ammo and types of weapons and gun bans.  Things like that.




I am against universal background checks because their only purpose is to get anti gunners to gun registration...because you need universal gun registration to do universal background checks...that is the only reason.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 13, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state.  As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.



Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.  

I think that the death penalty should be in every state.  I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives.  They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty.  in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself.  And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.


----------



## 2aguy (May 13, 2016)

The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state.  As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.
> ...



I disagree.  Once you are dead, you are dead.  Dirt nap time.  You don't have any worries or problems anymore.  It's adios and all over.    The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

2aguy said:


> The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.



So you don't trust the government with background checks, but you trust them enough to allow them to execute citizens?


----------



## ChrisL (May 13, 2016)

Makes zero sense to me.  I do NOT trust the government to allow them to execute people using OUR taxpayer dollars.  We are a civilized nation.  We shouldn't allow the states to execute citizens.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 13, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state.  As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.
> ...



The whole point of justice is that it is done without emotion. It is based on the facts, not on how much someone is crying.


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> I'm against the death penalty, but I am for LWOP.  I guess I'm a "libtard" now.



No you're not. You don't believe that banning guns will stop criminals from killing people with guns.


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> The whole point of justice is that it is *done without emotion. It is based on the facts, not on how much someone is crying*.



Now _that_ is some epic irony there. The entire liberal platform is built on sheer irrational emotion. It's why liberal policy always ends in failure. Because they ignore facts, data, and reality because of _feelings_.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 14, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of justice is that it is *done without emotion. It is based on the facts, not on how much someone is crying*.
> ...



You're partly right. Yes, a lot of liberals, like conservatives build their whole political view on something that isn't workable, is too ideological for it to work. 

This is why I'm someone in the center of politics. I believe that politics should be about all people, and not just about one group trying to gain supremacy over all others, like left over right or right over left. 

However, this has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is about justice.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 14, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



No, that's why we have different penalties for different violations.  If what you wrote had any truth to it, we wouldn't need judges, we would just have a computer spit out the sentence after the defendant was found guilty. 

But we have judges to take emotions into account.  If somebody kills me, my pain is over, it's my family that has to suffer my loss.  The defendant is the one who caused that suffering to my family, friends and even my employer.  Therefore it's the defendant that has to pay.  

That's why it's my belief that the family should make the decision on the death penalty.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 14, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself.  But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me.  The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 14, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.
> ...



It has nothing to do with trust.  It has to do with bringing forth punishment for a crime committed.   

So you don't trust the government to off somebody, but you trust government to lock them up in prison for most or the rest of their life?


----------



## Wilbur Right (May 14, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's why it's my belief that the family should make the decision on the death penalty.





Of course you believe that. You also believe you can/should shoot someone for breaking into your car.

Keep adding  bad ideas to your list of bad ideas.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 14, 2016)

Timmy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


According to your plenary and unconditional claim that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime" , any talk of "similar states" is irrelevant.
Good to see you understand your claim is nonsense.


----------



## P@triot (May 14, 2016)

“[Virginians] know and value too highly the blessings of their Union … *to consider every infraction [of the Constitution] as to be met by actual resistance*. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. *There is yet one greater–submission to a government of unlimited powers*.” - Thomas Jefferson (December 26, 1825)


----------



## P@triot (May 14, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (May 15, 2016)




----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



There is a pretty big difference between the two, so yes.


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed.  It takes years and years and prolongs their pain.  They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it.  Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?


----------



## P@triot (May 16, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Well I'm not sure that is a legitimate argument. Family and friends don't have to show up for sentencing, appeals, etc.


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



It draws it out and is a very long process.  There are TWO trials.  One to convict and one for sentencing.  Besides, it is wrong to give the state the power to kill citizens.  The state should never have such power.  NEVER.


----------



## Timmy (May 16, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



What are talking about ?  I issued u a challenge and u bailed .  You want to compare Vermont wh Cali?  That's so intellectually dishonest .   

Should we compare traffic congestion of Burlington vs LA ?


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




Our cops have it.....


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2016)

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Not really.  They are only supposed to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger or to save the lives of innocent people.  Almost all "modern" countries have done away with the death penalty.  We are the only "first world" country that still employs the death penalty, and we are in rank with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.  Nice.  Something to be "proud" of, eh?


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2016)

Timmy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...




I'll compare...you guys tell us it is the easy access to guns that create violent crime.....California has the stricest gun control in the country....lots of gun violence....

Vermont...all the gun freedom you could want.....and little to no crime....but you say...not that many people in the state.....but that doesn't matter...with the same say access to guns their little state should be worse than the city of Baltimore...........a city with every single gun control law you want...and one of the highest gun murder rates in the country....


You put out the standard...easy access to guns, lots of gun crime...so Vermont per capita should be far worse than even California......


There is not one aspect of the gun debate that supports any thing you say....


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2016)

Timmy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...




Population of the state of Vermont......626,562

Population of the city of Baltimore....622,104 (2013)

gun murders in Vermont....7

Gun murders in the city of Baltimore....344...

So....roughly the same population...

Vermont has easy gun laws...

Maryland, and Baltimore, extreme gun control laws...every one the gun grabber want......

And there you go....

According to you....Vermont should be as bloody, actually bloodier than Baltimore...right?  If access to guns is the issue...right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 17, 2016)

Timmy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...


I'm talking about you moving the goalposts, which you did once you realized your original statement was nonsense.
You stated that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime";  this is demonstrably untrue.
Now, admit you were wrong and move on.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 17, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Trials take the same amount of time for death penalty cases as they do life in prison cases. The lengthy draws are when the subject files for appeals which takes forever, and that's what needs to change in this country. 

While they are filing for appeals, they are imprisoned the entire time and that's no different than if a family has their attacker sentenced to life.  It doesn't change a thing. 

I don't know, but I believe if a family is really against the death penalty, they can have a word with the judge to make their feelings known, and I can't imagine a judge would not honor their request.  

However, if there were no death penalty and I wanted to see the attacker killed, I have no ability to see that because law would prohibit it, and then I would have to live my entire life anguished by the fact the person who did this to me is doing just fine in a prison I'm helping to pay for.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 17, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I don't see a difference.  You either trust the state or you don't.


----------



## Centinel (May 17, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed.  It takes years and years and prolongs their pain.  They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it.  Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?


I would support the idea of a convicted murderer being handed over to the family to do with him as they wish. They may, as you say, want him to remain alive until the end of his natural life. Or they may want to kill him. The choice should be theirs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 17, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Not really. They are only supposed to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger or to save the lives of innocent people. Almost all "modern" countries have done away with the death penalty. We are the only "first world" country that still employs the death penalty, and we are in rank with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Nice. Something to be "proud" of, eh?



Depends on how you look at it. 

Years ago a store opened up near my home.  I'm for small business so when I needed something, I always went to this new store. 

It was a middle-east family and very nice people at that.  One night when I walked there to get some beer, the police were inside talking with the employee.  After they left, I asked what happened.  He told me some drunk came into the store, took several packs of cigarettes off of the counter and left. 

He said his grandmother was asking him how he was doing here in the US and what his environment was like, so he sent her a copy of our local paper.  She wrote back with great concern. 

She stated that we have more theft in our suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in a year.  I asked him if that was true and he concurred. 

He said where he was from, if a person is caught stealing, the police cut off his hand, and not in a hospital either.  If caught sealing again, off comes the second hand.  There is no third time. 

He said that their markets are outside, and they place tables and chairs for customers to sit at.  He said if a woman lay her purse on a table and walked away, it's more than likely to still be there the next day.  Over here, you have to buy guard dogs and house alarms just to keep people out of your home while you are at work.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 19, 2016)

Currently viewing documentary."Under the gun." On Epix.

Woman being interviewed just stated, and I quote, "Legal gun owners are purchasing guns and selling them out of the trunk of their cars to children" and in the same breathe also states, "they are selling guns for $25."

Are you kidding me! A legal gun owner is going to spend upwards of $500. and sell it to a child, from the trunk of his car, for $25.

Then we get this BS that NRA members don't join the NRA because they agree with the NRA. They join because they get discounts at gun ranges and for purchasing products. Do they think the NRA is AARP and the only reason someone joins is for the discounts that they offer?

This is not a documentary, it is propaganda.

I can continue to pause this program and state every lie and BS story, and post it here. It was easier to turn this BS off.

Wife might not like it when she comes home and finds the Samsung  riddled with bullets.

Disclaimer. I would never shoot the TV. But you fucking idiots would be jumping up and down soiling your depends.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 19, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> This is not a documentary, it is propaganda.


If anti-gun loons could only tell the truth, they'd be silent.


----------



## 2aguy (May 19, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> Currently viewing documentary."Under the gun." On Epix.
> 
> Woman being interviewed just stated, and I quote, "Legal gun owners are purchasing guns and selling them out of the trunk of their cars to children" and in the same breathe also states, "they are selling guns for $25."
> 
> ...




Remember, left wingers don't understand economics either...so buying a gun for 599.00 and then selling it for 25 would make sense  to them....and considering that you are also facing several felonies by doing it...and they have no clue what they are talking about.......

There is not one aspect of the gun issue where the anti gunners are correct.  Not one of their arguments is backed up by facts, the truth or reality.....not one......


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 19, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> > Currently viewing documentary."Under the gun." On Epix.
> ...


I viewed most of the documentary and found much of it to be hyperbole and lies. A propaganda bonanza.

There were interesting point to be made concerning those with criminal backgrounds and gangs. 

I did have sympathy towards those who have to live with these tragedies and the loss of their loved ones, but much of it was aimed at blaming law abiding gun owners.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


> The sight of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting.  I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!



If there is one universal theme with libtards it is their genuine fear of not being able to indoctrinate _other_ people's children. They are mortified at the thought of children growing up educated and not falling prey to the insanity and absurdity that is the liberal ideology.

Sorry Corny - evil is destined to lose due to the sheer architecture of evil. Everything you people stand for (disarming law abiding citizens, usurping the law, imposing your will on other people, craving power and control, supporting abortion and atheism, etc.) is self-destructive. That's why the liberal voting base is a tough thing to maintain. How many liberals are killed on the south side of Chicago _every_ day? How many liberals have an abortion _every_ day preventing a new generation of brainwashed libtards? How many liberals are strung out on narcotics and will die _every_ day?

Meanwhile, conservatives just keep marching along defending the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, attending church, and caring for their children. You're on the wrong side of history corny. You're on the wrong side of good and evil. You are destined to lose.


----------



## candycorn (May 20, 2016)




----------



## 2aguy (May 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


>




We will have to see what he does when he is the President...he says he has changed his views on that.....we know hilary the criminal hasn't.........with Trump there is a chance he will be good on guns...with hilary...there is a 100% guarantee that she won't be......


----------



## Contumacious (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded




I like your post.

But a clarification, you do realize that we are FREE PEOPLE and the 2A EMPHASIZES our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms. The right is protected by the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. 

Otherwise the dingleberries will retort the the 2A only applies to militias.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> I wrote and managed two VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) grants offered by the Dept. of Justice (DOJ), which included probation officers, police officers/sheriff deputies and victim advocates, evaluated anger management training and enforced stay away court orders.  I have a very good grasp on the issues, and violence which women face in our society and around the world.



So let me get this straight - you have a deep and personal understanding of the violence that women face in our society, and your solution to this problem is to disarm women? To ensure that they are unarmed, helpless victims? _That_ is your solution to the problem? If I didn't know better, I'd say that you sound like a predator. Nobody wants to see people disarmed more than predators. Especially those that prey on women.


----------



## Contumacious (May 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


>




I buy my firearms from the Mexican drug cartels - they don't have waiting periods nor background checks.

Long Live the blackmarket.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yousaidwhat said:
> ...


But that's like a person blaming their mother for their father beating them. The reason they lost loved one's to gun tragedies is because of idiot liberal gun policy. It disarms everyone except the criminals.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Contumacious said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


I'm not sure where you are getting out of my post that we don't have an absolute right to bear arms. We do and no where do I state otherwise. Furthermore, as I've pointed out to libtards many times, it does not say "muskets" or "hand guns" - as in, our absolute right goes far beyond just a gun. It is _limitless_ in the type of weapon we can own. Limitless.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Freedom of the press - in the Constitution - doesn't exclude child pornography, does it?


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Good grief.  This is a sure sign of desperation.  Lol.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Surely you are desperate and trying to make an odd point.  

The second amendment is a constitutionally guaranteed right.  It says "arms" too.  That means, the arms of the day since even then they knew "arms" were changing and being modernized.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Rottweiler says the 2nd Amendment is 'limitless'.  If he's right, isn't the 1st Amendment also 'limitless'?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



These people are saying there are NO exceptions to the right to bear arms based on the fact there are no STATED exceptions in the text of the amendment.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



The liberal war on women continues. Belittling any woman that doesn't "know her place" on the liberal government plantation. Tell me you sexist mysognist pig - what is wrong with "hockey mom's"? The one's I have encountered were all wonderful, bright, law-abiding ladies.

By the way, the fact that you think all of this is ground breaking is hilarious. Geraldine Ferraro was nominated as VP on the Mondale & Ferraro ticket well over 30 years ago. Whenever the Dumbocrats are desperate, they roll out some minority which they hate and mistreat in an attempt to convince everyone about how "inclusive" they are. But I guess when you're policies suck ass and result in spectacular failure, you need to focus on something other than policy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



She fled the interview.  Big surprise.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Is the 1st Amendment "limitless"? Abso-freaking-lutely. But how is sending child-pornography "free speech"? It's not. At _all_. Speech is words that come out of your mouth. It's not photographs of children.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> She fled the interview.  Big surprise.



She didn't "flee". She's been owning liberals for hundreds of pages now. She's absolutely annihilated your side of the aisle with facts.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > She fled the interview.  Big surprise.
> ...



Cite me the text in the 1st Amendment that excludes child pornography from freedom of the press protection.

Word for word please.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Publishing child pornography is a function of the PRESS.  Freedom of the press has limitless protection in the 1st Amendment, according to you.

That means, according to YOU, all laws against publishing child pornography must be unconstitutional.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.
> 
> Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.



Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

_Oops_....


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.
> ...



So you agree that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional.  lol


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Again, press is _words_. Not pictures. And yes, you can absolutely SAY anything about children and sexuality. You can't take photos of them though. Your desperately grasping at straws here and looking pretty ridiculous.

Press is NOT photographs. They are WORDS. As is speech.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.
> ...



The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Bullshit.  Since when did newspapers and magazines etc., not have pictures?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


You seem desperate for that to be the case. Not entirely sure why. But no - freedom of speech and freedom of press are about WORDS. Photography didn't even exist back when the U.S. Constitution was written (whereas guns, *cannons*, etc. _did_).

You're really looking ridiculous here grasping this desperately at straws. Are you sure you don't want to try another approach?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


No it didn't. I've read the Constitution top to bottom and no where did it grant _any_ governing body to restrict it. I dare you to even attempt to show me what part. Go ahead. Copy and Paste the exact section. Good luck....


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



So photography and automatic weapons didn't exist at the time of the framing?

lolol, oops.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



If the Supreme Court doesn't have the power of judicial review, how is it able to rule on gun laws and decide they are unconstitutional?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Are you saying that all the attempts to get all or part of Obamacare ruled unconstitutional were out of line because the Supreme Court has no power to decide any such things?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


LMAO! The entire 1700's and most of the 1800's - until photography was invented.

What kind of stupid ass "logic" is that. Because Time magazine has picture in 2016 that makes it part of the "press"? 

The press is about WORDS. And you can 100% say anything about children, sexuality, etc. You can tell a story about raping a child and it's legal (so long as you didn't actually rape a child and it's just a made up story).


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


No. Quite the contrary - that is a perfect example of why the Supreme Court exist. To rule on legislation (such as Obamacare) and whether or not it is legal/Constitutional. However, that is a FAR cry from deciding what the Constitution itself means.

If Obamacare was in the Constitution, then the Supreme Court would have NO authority to decide what Obamacare meant or didn't mean, covered or didn't cover, etc.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


They aren't able to. Just because they do anyway is like saying "if rape wasn't legal and ok, why do women get raped every single day in this country". People break the law. Especially liberal politicians desperate to usurp the Constitution and impose their ideology on society.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Foreign enemies?!? Saddam had "Chemical Ali" unleash WMD's against his own Iraqi's (the kurds in the North).


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> A gun is not a defensive weapon.  It never was.



Really? So police carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)? The FBI carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)? The ATF carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)? The US Marshals carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)?

How _stupid_ do you look right now?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...


Bwahahahaha! Yes you can dumb ass! I've already addressed that right here in this very thread. Good grief, how _stupid_ are you libtards?!?!

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

http://www.amny.com/news/sen-chuck-...aking-with-household-items-loophole-1.9820711


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

I never cease to marvel at how libtards just make shit up as they go. They know NOTHING but they will literally just make it up out of thin air. Unbelievable. What kind of _asshole_ does something like that?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Canons existed. Our founders had seen the evolution of weapons and specifically stated ARMS and not "guns" for that reason. Nice try though!

LOLOL, _oops_...


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Go to a self defense class and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.



And how does that help anything J4J? For instance, no matter how many "self-defense classes" you took, I would still be able to beat you like a little bitch. I could literally beat you into a coma and even death. So how does that help?

Now, take that realization and then look a little, petite CL who is a woman. She doesn't have testosterone so she doesn't have the muscle mass of a man, the size, the strength, etc. You can't even defend yourself as a guy and you want CL to try to fight men who have a longer reach, larger hands, more muscle due to hormones, and outweigh her?

Here's a better suggestion than yours: go to a class on the U.S. Constitution and stop trying to cheat people out of their *rights*. _Idiot_.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


First photograph 1826


----------



## Divine Wind (May 20, 2016)

SuperDemocrat said:


> The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?


The typical LWL argument against the Second Amendment:  well if you want a handgun, why not also a nuke!


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Yousaidwhat said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



He _really_ thought he had latched onto something there with the whole "child pornography" thing as an example of how and why the 2nd Amendment could and should be limited. 

The reality is - the 1st Amendment with regards to speech and press are about WORDS and there is no limit on words (I'm waiting for one of them to point out the obvious on how they believe there are - in which case I will obliterate that one if and when they think of it).


----------



## Divine Wind (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.


Not for lack of trying.  Wasn't President Obama really, really pissed that his gun control didn't pass?  LOL

BTW, the best thing to happen to American gun manufacturers is Barack Obama and the anti-gun Left.  I, just by myself, have bought seven additional handguns and rifles (two of them AKs) and several thousand rounds of ammunition.  Why?  Because of the anti-gun Left and this guy:


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> > The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?
> ...


The truth is - we literally do have a right to nuclear weapons. But it's not a concern for a multitude of reasons:

Show me a company that sells nuclear arms
Purchasing one would cost a minimum of $10 million dollars
That leaves a small handful of ultra rich (nobody is dropping $10 million on a nuke if their entire net worth is $10 million - so you're looking at people who have at least $20 million or more) and I highly doubt any of them (such as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, desire a nuke).
Nuclear weapons require multiple codes to launch - even the U.S. President cannot launch one himself
The US _is_ 100% constitutionally permitted to regulate foreign commerce - including dangerous/hazardous materials so a cheaper nuclear weapon altered to avoid the standard multiple launch codes through the black market could not be purchased legally anyway
It's a non-issue that could only be brought up by the modern-day libtard with the critical thinking skills of the average 4 year old.


----------



## 2aguy (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



child porn is not protected because it is an attack on children....children are harmed when you create it and they cannot give consent to participate....you can get all the other porn you want..can't you?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...



He's the best thing to ever happen to the gun industry. When he was first elected, they couldn't keep up with demand. He's made the gun industry hundreds of billions of dollars (which will be used to defeat moron's like him in elections). It's a special kind of stupid that could only come from the left.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


And even that isn't the reason 2aG. The real reason is, the 1st Amendment applies to WORDS. And yes - you can speak or write all you want about children and sex. But taking photographs are *not* words.


----------



## 2aguy (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Nope....children cannot give consent to participat in child porn.......and it is illegal to have sex with underage children or to profit from it...all other porn....perfectly protected........

Gun rights are already limited...you cannot commit a crime with a gun...or sell one to a felon......

Pretty much covers everything you need to cover right there.....

What else do you think we need...that actually is necessary and actually works....


----------



## Divine Wind (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> He's the best thing to ever happen to the gun industry. When he was first elected, they couldn't keep up with demand. He's made the gun industry hundreds of billions of dollars (which will be used to defeat moron's like him in elections). It's a special kind of stupid that could only come from the left.


Gun manufacturers have profited very well under President Obama.  It wouldn't surprise me they are rooting for Hillary too!

Gun stock investors love Obama
*Gun owners may not like it when President Obama talks about guns. But gun investors certainly do.*
_Whenever the president discusses the need for tougher gun control laws, gun stocks go up. A lot._


_It happened in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut more than three years ago._

_And it happened again on Monday following reports that Obama would unveil executive actionson Tuesday that call for expanded background checks among other things._

_On what turned out to be an ugly day for the overall market, shares of Smith & Wesson (SWHC)rose 6%. Sturm Ruger (RGR) popped 3%._

_Ammunition makers Olin (OLN) (which owns Winchester) and Vista Outdoor (VSTO) rallied too._

_Related: Obama's evolution on gun control_

_And shares of sporting goods retailer Cabela's (CAB), which generates nearly half of its sales from hunting equipment, held up relatively well amidst the broader market turmoil. The stock finished the day slightly higher._

_Most of these gun stocks gained again Tuesday as Obama formally unveiled his new gun control plans._

_Smith & Wesson soared another 11% in midday trading while Sturm Ruger was up 7%._

_The main reason for the latest gun run? Smith & Wesson raised its sales and earnings outlook for its latest quarter and entire fiscal year, citing "strong growth" in FBI background checks for guns in December.

Strong is actually an understatement. It was a record month for background checks. There were more than 3.3 million. The previous all-time high was 2.78 million in December 2012 -- the month of the Newtown massacre.

As a result, Smith & Wesson's sales for the quarter that ended in December may now be up as much as 38% from a year ago, compared to previous estimates for growth of 18%.

The increased demand for guns should not be a huge surprise._


----------



## 2aguy (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




No...the Court was never given that power..they assumed the power to declare things Constitutional in Marbury v. MAdison.....and have never been challenged on that.....something that needs to change.


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Well, I had no idea this was an interview.  In order for me to grant you an interview, I want to get paid, of course.


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > She fled the interview.  Big surprise.
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


what do bears have to do with the right to bare arms?


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

I have the right to Bison Legs


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)




----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


>


and of course, Joe Biden has the right to use his arms on 12 yr old cute white girls.


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



No he doesn't.  Arm that poor girl with bear arms!


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


What about Bill Clinton? He seems to have the right to use his arms on any hot,slightly overweight brunette wearing a hat.


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


i think Hillary has the right to bear her arms on Huma. she is sooo turned on by her.


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Huma looks like the Bride of FRankenstein in this pic


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


That's what happens under sniper fire...


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


> It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend:  A “well-regulated militia”.



This is going to sting a bit CC....but just remember....it is for your own good:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Militia


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...



I don't think she's very pretty anyway.  Lol.  Huma the horse mouth.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


> It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend:  A “well-regulated militia”.



This is going to sting a bit CC....but just remember....it is for your own good:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, *and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American* ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788.

Militia

Notice it says the birthright of an American - not a militia man. And notice that it says EVERY "other terrible implement of the soldier". Not just muskets. Not just guns. Everything that the U.S. military has at it's disposal is the Constitutional right of the citizen to have at its disposal.


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)




----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


maybe in that pic? Huma was grazed by a sniper bullet? I mean, thats the look I have every time i get hit by sniper fire


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)




----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)




----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

Rustic said:


>


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

Rustic said:


>


do you have a pic of Hillarys reaction to a sniper bullet coming and going from her butt?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

Rustic said:


>


and also ,do u have a photo of Hillary catching Huma in bed with another woman?


----------



## ChrisL (May 20, 2016)

Okay, well, we don't want to spam Mr. Rottweiler's thread.    Funny stuff though!  Lol.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Okay, well, we don't want to spam Mr. Rottweiler's thread.    Funny stuff though!  Lol.


i heard a bears arm can take my head off if its a female bear during pms week


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Okay, well, we don't want to spam Mr. Rottweiler's thread.    Funny stuff though!  Lol.


and Hillarys arm would De-Bowel me if she lost her temper and whacked me in the stomache.


----------



## 2aguy (May 20, 2016)

Do bears S**t in the woods....and do transgender bears have a right to **** there too?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 20, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Do bears S**t in the woods....and do transgender bears have a right to **** there too?


i have always wondered if gay bears had the right to use the bathroom of their choice in the wods


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



When did the Supreme Court ever rule on automatic weapons?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


The liberals have used so many tools and tactics to usurp the will of the people _and_ the U.S. Constitution that they can't even remember which one they used which time.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



What does the "press" have to do with child pornography?  The press talks about the subject when it comes up from time to time.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What they don't understand is that the US Constitution does not tell us what we can do, it tells us what government can't do.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Oh don't kid yourself - they understand. But they can't impose their views on the rest of society if they obey the U.S. Constitution. So they pretend like it doesn't matter, or they pretend like they don't understand what it says, or they pretend like 9 unelected individuals were "magically" granted powers in invisible ink on the document to decide what the document means, etc.

They come up with every absurd and desperate thing they can think of for why you don't have the rights that they don't want you to have.


----------



## Contumacious (May 20, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...




*EXACTLY*.


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Oh don't kid yourself - they understand. But they can't impose their views on the rest of society if they obey the U.S. Constitution. So they pretend like it doesn't matter, or they pretend like they don't understand what it says, or they pretend like 9 unelected individuals were "magically" granted powers in invisible ink on the document to decide what the document means, etc.
> 
> They come up with every absurd and desperate thing they can think of for why you don't have the rights that they don't want you to have.



I think the best one they so frequently use is that the US Constitution is outdated, and merely for the people of it's time. 

Second place is that some of the authors were slave owners, therefore that discredits any of their opinions, ideas, or morals.  

But oh how they bask in the glory of our Constitution when the judges rule that Gay Marriage or Commie Care is protected.


----------



## candycorn (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



That was weak and pathetic even for you.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Right? I thought the exact same thing about NYCarbineers really sad and desperate grasping at straws. Glad you saw it the same way!


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)

2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Are you really this dense or are you pretending to be because being rational would fuck with your agenda?


----------



## candycorn (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Freedom of the press covers images and they are limited.
The right to bear arms can be limited using the same jurisprudence.

Fact.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Have you posted where the 1st Amendment protection of freedom of the press allows for the exceptions related to child pornography?

Or are you now willing to concede that the 2nd Amendment allows for exceptions?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Prove that child pornography is not protected by the 1st amendment, using only the wording of the 1st amendment.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



If you believe that a 10 year old should be able to go buy a machine gun, no questions asked,

then let's hear that argument.


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)




----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)




----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)




----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rustic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



That's your argument that the 2nd amendment protects the right of ten year olds to buy and possess machine guns?

Were you homeschooled by any chance?


----------



## Rustic (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


only fucking idiot would call an AR 15 an "assault weapon"
On the Pineridge reservation by the federal government...


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Man alive....talk about a "straw man". Where did anyone say anything about a child? You do realize that children can't vote, right? And you know they can't drive either, right? And you do know that they can't enter into a contract? Can't be brought up on charges in a court of law?

You would rather say any bizarre thing and grasp desperately at any straw than acknowledge the American people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, uh?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I think we've indisputably established that you are "fact" adverse already and wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. Freedom of the press and freedom of the speech are for WORDS. Otherwise I could stab you to death and proclaim it falls under my "freedom of speech". It applies to WORDS. Images can and do have limitations. But thanks for playing. Each time you lob one up over the plate, I smash it out of the park and take my victory lap around the bases.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Does the first amendment say that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected as free speech?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?



Just for the record - I do not _believe_ anything. I _know_ for a *fact* - unequivocally - that the American people have an unfettered right to arms. Not guns. Not muskets. Arms. And no, there is no "exceptions" to that. I can't make it any clearer than that.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 20, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?
> ...



What are the exceptions to freedom of speech, the press, and religion in the 1st Amendment?


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Does the first amendment say that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected as free speech?



Haha! I've _dying_ for a liberal to bring that up. You absolutely, positively have a Constitutional right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The U.S. Constitution guaranteed you rights - not safety and/or security.

But....do you know _why_ you cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Because the Supreme Court illegally said as much? Nope. Not at _all_. The reason you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater is because you are on private property and have purchased a ticket binding you to the rules of that private institution. That private institution has every right to decide what you can and can't do on their property, say and not say on their property, see and not see on their property, etc. And you have the choice to not go there if you don't like it.

The _theater_ has every power under the Constitution to stop you from yelling "fire". The _government_ does *not*. And that is the difference. And that is a fact.


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Prove that child pornography is not protected by the 1st amendment, using only the wording of the 1st amendment.



I already did brother. Like more than a half a dozen times. Here they all are for your browsing pleasure (I've even taken the time to grab the links for each of them just to make it easier for all of my friends on USMB - both right _and_ left - to see). These all obliterate your absurd and desperate "child pornography" cries.

#1161

#1165

#1167

#1170

#1175

#1186

And this one here obliterates the equally absurd and equally desperate "well I guess that means everyone should have a nuclear bomb" libtard battle-cry:
#1188


----------



## P@triot (May 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


None. They don't exist. You don't seem to grasp that a right is a _right_. It's not optional, it's not negotiable, it's not interpretable, it's not limited, it's not questionable, and it's not a bargaining chip.

I get the feeling that liberals find living in the U.S. too "scary". They don't like liberty. It means that people can do things they want to do, make their own decisions, not be limited to the liberal "comfort zone", etc. It's a shame that they would rather have little or no freedoms in exchange to experience the extreme oppression that makes them feel "safe". Almost like a baby in the womb. No way to go anywhere, do anything, see anything, say anything, experience anything, but it is warm, soft, and comfortable. Frankly, I'd much rather leave the womb and live a little. Yeah - you may get some paper cuts on this side, scrapes and bruises, bumps and bleeding, but the liberty of it makes it a _hell_ of a lot more interesting and _well_ worth it.


----------



## Political Junky (May 21, 2016)

Trump changed his mind about gun ownership, and is now embraced by the NRA.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 21, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The exceptions are when there are laws written against it.  

For instance, let's say you had the money and wanted to buy a fully armed tank, but your city or state wouldn't let you.  In order to find out if owning a tank is constitutional, you would have to challenge it in our court systems. 

If the courts kept finding your claim invalid, then it ends up at the Supreme Court where the final decision of constitutionality is decided.  

If they decide that you don't have the right to own a tank, then your city or state wins the battle.  If they decide you do have the constitutional right to own the tank, the city or state can't do anything to stop you from buying one.  It's the law of the land.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 21, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



No I don't believe that.  You have no constitutional rights until you become an adult.  Until that time, you are under the jurisdiction of your parents or care takers. 

If the school suspects your child of being in possession of illegal narcotics or even a weapon, they don't need a search warrant to search his locker.  They just cut the lock and search.  Out of respect to the parents, they may contact them first, but not because they have any legal obligation.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 21, 2016)

This is not an assault rifle. Pennsylvania rifles were manufactured in the U.S. Making gunpowder is not very sophisticated chemistry. Arms were illegal for common people in most (or all) European countries at that time.
At that time, a rifle like the above was superior in many ways to British firearms. It took an expert 20 seconds to reload it. The danger to bystanders and others was nothing compared to modern repeating rifles.
Imagining things are as they are not is maladapted to functioning in civilized society. Insisting upon extreme positions wins no support.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?
> ...


What you’ve made clear is your ignorance, stupidity, and the fact you’re comprehensively wrong.

Even your beloved Scalia reaffirmed the fact that no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; or is Scalia ‘wrong’ as well.

Indeed, In _Heller_, Scalia compared the Second Amendment to the First, in that the rights enshrined in both are again neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’:

  “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms._ *Of course the right was not unlimited*_, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., _United States v. Williams_, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for _any sort_ of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for _any purpose_.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

So again, is it your position that Scalia was ‘wrong,’ that you know more than the Great Conservative Jurist himself, as well as the four other conservative justices who concurred with the fact the no right is ‘unlimited,’ including the Second Amendment right.

Clearly you’ve gone beyond the limits of ridiculous rightwing ignorance and stupidity and entered another bizarre universe of moronic wrongheadedness and delusion that is the realm of TPM idiocy; even the most extreme, reactionary rightwing loon doesn’t buy into the baseless notion that rights are ‘absolute.’


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What are you talking about?  You said I ran from the interview.  Lol.  Your words "she fled the interview."  I get that your an angry person with no sense of humor though.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> This is not an assault rifle. Pennsylvania rifles were manufactured in the U.S. Making gunpowder is not very sophisticated chemistry. Arms were illegal for common people in most (or all) European countries at that time.
> At that time, a rifle like the above was superior in many ways to British firearms. It took an expert 20 seconds to reload it. The danger to bystanders and others was nothing compared to modern repeating rifles.
> Imagining things are as they are not is maladapted to functioning in civilized society. Insisting upon extreme positions wins no support.



"Imagining things as they are not is maladapted to functioning in civilized society.  Insisting on extreme positions wins no support."  Hmm.  Reminds me of another hot topic on USMB.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Cars are super regulated.  Safety inspected each year in most states.  You must carry liability insurance.  You must have a license to operate one.  Have built in safety features in many models such as collision avoidance, safety belts, and air bags. Cops set up checkpoints at random to make sure the drivers are sober, you have insurance, and are licensed to be firing err I mean driving.
> 
> Put those well-regulated implements into firearms and you’ll see a bunch of people feel a lot better.



The beauty of the U.S. Constitution and my *rights* is that I don't have to care about people "feeling a lot better". How many things do you break per day in the midst of a temper that the U.S. Constitution and the rights that they afford me don't provide you with the juvenile "safe space" you are so desperate for?


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> If you’re in a “well regulated militia"



"No scholar or court has argued seriously that the Second Amendment guarantees a “right” to join or bear arms in the National Guard or a state militia – such organizations make their own recruitment and employment decisions. This argument, contrived in the 20th century to emasculate the Second Amendment, has never been taken seriously on the merits."

"Attorney General Ashcroft states that “the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.”

"Ashcroft quotes George Mason at the Virginia ratification convention in 1788: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the *whole* *people* [...] To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

The Ashcroft letter continues: “As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the *Firearms Owners’ Protection Act*.” The act states, “The Congress finds that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution [...] require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies.” This finding was amply supported by *The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a 1982 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution*. It found:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is *protected is an individual right of a private citizen* to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Rewriting the Second Amendment - Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D.

_Ouch_. This is a comprehensive beat down on your nonsensical and completely made up view of the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > If you’re in a “well regulated militia"
> ...



Corny's arguments against the 2A are completely ridiculous and easily proven false, yet keeps on making the same old arguments which are shot down again and again.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yeah...it's sad. The left just can't be honest. I don't understand why it's so hard to say "I hate the 2nd Amendment, guns scare me, and I think they should be outlawed" and then work to amend the U.S. Constitution _legally_ so that guns are restricted our outlawed.

I would have *zero* problem with _any_ liberal that did that. The founders weren't dictators, they built in a mechanism to change the Constitution as the people see fit. The reason people are so irate with liberals is because they can't accept the will of the American people and so they attempt to restrict our rights and freedoms by violating the law. It's disgusting and disgraceful.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



They are SO dishonest.  They are afraid to say what they are really thinking.  I love the ones who tell you that they own guns.


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

Will the real Donald Drumpf please stand up?


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Sorry, your personal interpretation (due to your dishonesty) has already been struck down by the SCOTUS.    What else you got?


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Which SCOTUS was that?  We’re getting a new one (practically) installed when HRC starts appointing 3-4 to go along with Kagan and Sotomayor.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Of course you don't know.  Lol.  More dishonesty?  

And?  That doesn't mean anything.  You can dream all day long though!


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I imagine a bunch of bigots were sitting around saying the same thing about Plessy (sp?).  How’d that work out for you guys?


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



What?  Lol.    That's right, let your true nuttiness shine through!  A sure sign of one who has no legs to stand on.


----------



## Contumacious (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




I purchase my firearms from the drug cartels. They have not yet asked me if I am part of a well regulated militia.

Long live the blackmarket.


.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Will the real Donald Drumpf please stand up?



No argument there CC (at all). The guy has been a dedicated Dumbocrat for most of his life. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn some day that he is the real life "Manchurian Candidate". Sent by the Dumbocrats in attempt to ensure that no matter which side wins, a liberal sits in the Oval Office.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Which SCOTUS was that?  We’re getting a new one (practically) installed when HRC starts appointing 3-4 to go along with Kagan and Sotomayor.
> ...



Do you know why a gorilla beats on its chest? It is _really_ scared and it's hoping that a false display of bravado will intimidate a threat into running away so that the gorilla doesn't have to fight. That is CC in a nut shell. She keeps trying to comfort herself by convincing herself that Hillary is already president and replacing 7 of the 9 justices with political activists.

The funniest part of that? It wouldn't matter if it happened anyway. The Supreme Court has zero authority over the U.S. Constitution. All of us would keep our guns no matter what they ruled. That is the part that pisses her off the most. The realization that she is as helpless as an infant strapped into a high chair


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Contumacious said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



What a coincidence - CC sells *some* things on the blackmarket! Who would have thought that the two of you would be engaging in commerce in the same market? Small world!


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


A bunch of bigots? You mean the liberal Dumbocrats who hated black people (and still do) and fought to keep slavery legal (and still do)? Yeah....if you're on the left....bringing up Plessy vs. Ferguson is a _bad_ idea. That's like a rapist brining up sex.


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



How repetitive of you . . . *yawn*  Got anything better?


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



It need not be original when it is so very effective.  Your messiah disagrees with you.  LOL.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Too bad you are very ineffective.  You are too predictable too.    Lol.  

The Donald is not my messiah.  Seems to be yours though.


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Your messiah liked the BoAW and a longer waiting period.  So I guess you agree with that?


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You still haven't explained what you know about me and why you would claim The Donald is my "messiah."  Lol.  You suck.


----------



## candycorn (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Poor wittle baby…did yor feelings get hurt?   I showed you that your messiah disagrees with you on this topic and you’re spazzing out…bless your heart.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Lol.  I'm "spazzing out?"  Still waiting for you to explain to me how Donald Trump is my messiah.    Can't do it, can you?


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I think you might be retarded, seriously.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Oh that's something....coming from the broad who literally started crying in another thread because I posted too many facts. You've got a lot of nerve CC to taunt Chris after you fell apart like a cheap Kmart sweater.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


She's off her meds _again_. It's not pretty when this happens.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.



"No scholar or court has argued seriously that the Second Amendment guarantees a “right” to join or bear arms in the National Guard or a state militia – such organizations make their own recruitment and employment decisions. This argument, contrived in the 20th century to emasculate the Second Amendment, has never been taken seriously on the merits."

"Attorney General Ashcroft states that “the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.”

"Ashcroft quotes George Mason at the Virginia ratification convention in 1788: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the *whole* *people* [...] To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

The Ashcroft letter continues: “As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the *Firearms Owners’ Protection Act*.” The act states, “The Congress finds that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution [...] require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies.” This finding was amply supported by *The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a 1982 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution*. It found:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is *protected is an individual right of a private citizen* to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Rewriting the Second Amendment - Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D.

_Ouch_. This is a comprehensive beat down on your nonsensical and completely made up view of the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Ha ha!  That's a great line "fell apart like a cheap Kmart sweater."  I like it.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.
> ...



You could post this a million times, and they will STILL use their same old lame arguments.  Lol.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.



So help us to understand something here Cornhole. If the Constitution requires a person to be a member of a militia before they can own a firearm, how is it that I've managed to purchase dozens of firearms over my life time despite *never* having been in a militia? And not on the black market. Every single firearm I have purchased was a brand new firearm from dealer. How do you explain that?

How do you explain that all 50 states have some form of conceal carry? If the people aren't allowed to have firearms, what would there be to carry concealed? 

Lets be honest - this is just you being desperate for attention. You have no husband. No boyfriend. You're nearly 50 and you just want to antagonize someone for attention like a 1st grader. We all know that you know that guns are 100% legal and Constitutional for any U.S. citizen.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


She's just doing it for attention. In another thread she started crying and basically asking why I was so "mean" because I was obliterating her with facts. More than anything she likes to antagonize people so that she will have _someone_ to talk to. She doesn't realize if she's stop acting like an idiot that she wouldn't need to resort to stuff like that for someone to talk to her.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Will the real Donald Drumpf please stand up?


Of course, Trump has changed his tune now that he’s a ‘conservative.’

And consistent with most on the right he’s also lying about the issue – lies such as Clinton wants to ‘take your guns away’ and ‘abolish the Second Amendment.’

In addition to being a liar, Trump also exhibits his ignorance of the law: no president can ‘take your guns away,’ nor can any Congress – to attempt to do so would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Just as idiotic is the notion of ‘abolishing’ the Second Amendment, as the Constitution’s amendment process does not involve the Executive Branch.

It’s difficult to determine what is more pathetic: Trump’s ignorance or the fact he’s a liar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.
> ...


Given your comprehensive ignorance and stupidity and your moronic contention that the Second Amendment right is ‘unlimited,’ along with your ridiculous lies, you’re in no position to ‘demand’ anything of anyone – that someone be honest in particular.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Another one who can't get over the fact that I humiliated them when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. CCJ had never read it, didn't understand it (at all), and when I was able to document the facts, he threw a fit and never got over it.

I haven't told a single lie junior. Ever. I've backed up everything with original writings from the founders. I'm sorry your so traumatized by being exposed as a fraud, but deal with it. You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it. Maybe next time you won't try to pretend that you know about something which you've never eve read. Probably not knowing you libtards. But maybe.


----------



## Markle (May 21, 2016)

I have no clue as to why anyone posts on this thread.  I'm new on this forum but some of it appears to be a kindergarten playground.

Several don't understand the English language also contains PUNCTUATION which greatly changes the meaning of a sentence.  For those in denial about punctuation.  Here is a SIMPLE example.  If anyone needs it dumbed down further, I can't help you.

First and last post here, candycorn is surely a few fries short of a Happy Meal.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.
> ...





Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Well, this place is FOR debate, not for finding boyfriends, so she is not out of line even if she is wrong.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Is that your way of turning me down gently???


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Markle said:


> I have no clue as to why anyone posts on this thread.  I'm new on this forum but some of it appears to be a kindergarten playground.
> 
> Several don't understand the English language also contains PUNCTUATION which greatly changes the meaning of a sentence.  For those in denial about punctuation.  Here is a SIMPLE example.  If anyone needs it dumbed down further, I can't help you.
> 
> First and last post here, candycorn is surely a few fries short of a Happy Meal.


Thank you! And every time I bring that up I'm told two of the dumbest things ever:

1.) "It's 2016" (oh...ok...I guess I missed the memo that said grammar was eliminated effective 2016)

2.) "Stop being the grammar police"


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



  You wanna be my boyfriend?  I had no idea.


----------



## Lakhota (May 21, 2016)

> *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*



So, you thank a fictitious Sky Daddy for a right erroneously granted by probably the most fucked up poorly written sentence in American history - the 2nd Amendment.  Funny...


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


By the way - there is a BIG difference between "debate" and just being an antagonistic idiot. CC is the latter.


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I don't know her very well.  I haven't read many of her posts.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> 
> 
> 
> So, you thank a fictitious Sky Daddy for a right erroneously granted by probably the most fucked up poorly written sentence in American history - the 2nd Amendment.  Funny...


Only a libtard could consider "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be a "fucked up poorly written sentence". You can't make this stuff up folks

Seriously - that is so straight forward and simple that your average 1st Grader would be able to understand it. Which explains why libtards can't. 

Laky...we've been down this road before. And you were hammered with facts and obliterated with truth. No matter how desperate you are to pervert the U.S. Constitution out of fear, it's not happening. You lost. Accept it. If liberty and firearms are just too scary for you, Cuba will welcome you with open arms son.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Well you just got a dozen of her "best". Draw your own conclusions from there...


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



She's very repetitive.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> 
> 
> 
> So, you thank a fictitious Sky Daddy



“The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.” Proverbs 10:14


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I had another term in mind - but yours is much more polite so we'll go with yours


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> 
> 
> 
> So, you thank a fictitious Sky Daddy *for a right erroneously granted*...



Notice the _extreme_ arrogance there friends? Lakhota is willing to declare that no only does he know that God doesn't exist, but that our founders, all of society, and much of humanity was wrong for granting a basic right like the right to defend one's self. Lakhota (in his mind) is the _ultimate_ authority in the universe my friends - far wiser than anyone who has ever lived and thus why he has no need for God and why he can tell you that your rights were "erroneously granted".


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> 
> 
> 
> So, you thank a fictitious Sky Daddy...



“When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13.11)


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> 
> 
> 
> So, you thank a fictitious Sky Daddy for a right erroneously granted by probably the most fucked up poorly written sentence in American history - the 2nd Amendment.  Funny...



“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution _they_ don't like.” ― Alan M. Dershowitz

I've warned libtards about this thousands of times over several decades. But they are just too stupid to realize that anything they use to eliminate the 2nd Amendment can be used to eliminate other rights or amendments. A perfect example is their nonsensical "but the founder could never have envisioned the technical advancement that would result in fully automatic weapons". Well, I guarantee you they were a lot closer to envisioning _that_ than they ever were to envisioning computers, laptops, cell phones, apps, the internet, satellites, etc. which allow freedom of speech and freedom of the press to flow around the entire world in milliseconds. So by their own logic, every liberal should sit down and shut up _immediately_. Surrender their 1st Amendment rights like good little libtards.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> ...



What they should do is what I suggest to them all the time:  Hang a huge sign on your front porch that says THERE ARE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and see where that gets you. 

So far, none have taken me up on my offer that I'm aware of.  Maybe they are no longer with us......who knows?


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


Yep! Ironic. They are soooooo afraid of guns, but they are also sooooo afraid to tell everyone that their home doesn't have a gun. Seems like liberals are always afraid not matter what. Which makes a lot of sense really since fear will almost always drive irrational responses (which is all we get from the left).


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> If you’re in a “well regulated militia"



Interesting. I'm seeing quite a trend. Have you to find someone who was an active member of a "militia" and yet all of them have a very large and impressive arsenal at their disposal. Can you explain that CC?


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2016)

ChrisL said:


>


But understand something - that is _exactly_ why the liberals want to disarm you. The prisons are filled with Dumbocrat voters (the Republican inmate is definitely the minority). The people who want to rape and murder you are the exact same people trying to disarm you (for obvious reasons).


----------



## ChrisL (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Actually, I don't have a gun (I just thought it was a pretty cool meme), but if I decided I did want one, it's a pretty crappy reason to try and prevent me from getting one because of "mass shooters."


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 21, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I would disagree with your statement. 

Both parties rely on their bases for victory and support.  The two largest in the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. 

Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.  So it make sense for Democrats to create as many victims as possible. 

If Democrats were able to make firearms illegal, then the only two entities that would have firearms would be the police and the criminals.  That's because most law abiding citizens would have to adhere to the new laws, but criminals wouldn't.  

In essence, they would create a country wide gun-free zone for us law biding citizens.  That would create big crime.  And how do Democrats battle big anything?  Bigger government. 

Without the ability to defend ourselves, we too become victims.  We would need more police, more prisons, more courts, more government period.  

That's the real reason behind disarming Americans.


----------



## Contumacious (May 21, 2016)

*
For Sale by the Sinaloa Drug Cartel : 20,000 pesos*


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

Contumacious said:


> *
> For Sale by the Sinaloa Drug Cartel : 20,000 pesos*


_Damn_! I'll take two of those. Love it. Any time you can arm a vehicle with a Gatling you have my full attention


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

I think we might get a lot further with our discussion if we didn't polarize people with party politics.


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> I think we might get a lot further with our discussion if we didn't polarize people with party politics.


Well now you're just taking the fun out of everything...


----------



## there4eyeM (May 22, 2016)

There is a deep psychological link in human males to how they can make life with their penis and also make death with their strength. It is the deep seated doubts they bear in sexual prowess, and power in general, that leads to the excessive displays society has to suffer.


----------



## Campbell (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



Leave god outta your right wing bullshit. I've read the new testament and I can't recall any scripture which would accommodate carrying a sidearm.


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

Campbell said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


The Bible supports self-defense and the Constitution accomodates carrying a sidearm. You're frustration at not being able rape and murder women like the one in this story is palpable.


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> I imagine a bunch of bigots were sitting around saying the same thing about Plessy (sp?).  How’d that work out for you guys?



Speaking of bigots....thank God this homosexual in Philadelphia was allowed to defend himself with a firearm or he would've been painfully beaten to death with pipes.

Even the homosexuals are onboard firearms now CC. You are in the extreme minority of lunes suffering from an irrational fear of an inanimate object and you will never get our rights overturned. Now get back on your meds quickly before this causes you to have another _major_ episode.

Gay Gun Group Believes Its D.C. Court Win Puts Homophobes on Notice


----------



## candycorn (May 22, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> In essence, they would create a country wide gun-free zone for us law biding citizens.  That would create big crime.  And how do Democrats battle big anything?  Bigger government.
> 
> Without the ability to defend ourselves, we too become victims.  We would need more police, more prisons, more courts, more government period.
> 
> That's the real reason behind disarming Americans.



Meanwhile Drumpf is going to hirev10000 more jack booted thugs.

Immigration Reform

Gotta love the small government gun nuts


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > In essence, they would create a country wide gun-free zone for us law biding citizens.  That would create big crime.  And how do Democrats battle big anything?  Bigger government.
> ...



Maybe we can just turn all those IRS agents into border patrol agents.  At least they would be doing something good for their money.


----------



## candycorn (May 22, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Then again, more likely they become ATF agents:


----------



## Rustic (May 22, 2016)

Campbell said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


There's also nothing in there that says there is not a right to a SideArm... Dumbass


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.



"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the *people* of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams


----------



## Rustic (May 22, 2016)

Federal government is the enemy of the country, it's taken many decades for this to develop as to what it is today.


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

Rustic said:


> Federal government is the enemy of the country, it's taken many decades for this to develop as to what it is today.


Tragic but true. How sad what it has morphed into. When it was first founded, it was filled with men of honor and integrity who had no desire to rule over people. Now, liberals spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to impose their will on others.


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Federal government is the enemy of the country, it's taken many decades for this to develop as to what it is today.
> ...



I would agree with this if you had included BOTH parties.


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


It does my dear. I never said Dumbocrats. I said liberals. The Republican Party is almost _exclusively_ made up of liberals.


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Conservatives though!  *thumbs down*


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.



*"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823*

(Get an adult to help you read this CC....it is epic stuff and of vital importance as it illustrates how the founders disapprove of your attempts to pervert the U.S. Constitution for you own advantage).


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Uh?


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



What?


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


That's what I'm asking you. What did "*Conservatives though! *thumbs down**" mean? I don't understand what you were saying there (at _all_).


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I thought it was pretty straight forward.  Conservatives thumbs down.  Liberals thumbs down.  Both thumbs down.  None of these people can think for themselves.  That's why they have to be "conservatives" and "liberals."


----------



## candycorn (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Gee Rott…you’re circuitry is about to burn up….she/he/it painted you into a corner.  Now lash out at her/him/it with the hate we all know you have.

Love me some mental-midget wrestling.


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Don't be sad.  I still like you.  Everyone has their flaws.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 22, 2016)

*Donald Trump: ‘I’m not advocating guns in classrooms’ but ‘teachers should have guns in classrooms’*


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


"Painted into a corner"??? 

With what? Her _opinion_ on conservatives? Yeah...sure got "painted into a corner" there. 

How do you manage to even get out of bed and feed yourself in the morning? Or do you have help?


----------



## candycorn (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



One of your “flaws” as she put it.

as I said, I love seeing mental-midget wrestling.


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I'm just joking around with him.  As usual, liberals have absolutely NO sense of humor.  Do you have anything to add to the topic?


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You know there is an exception to every rule, right? Well, _I _am that exception. Completely flawless. That's why CC has such an healthy stalker crush on me...


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



She _never _does...Literally never. Completely devoid of facts, logic, reason, common sense, or knowledge. Thus, it is really hard for her to add _anything_.


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



And....uh.....again....._how_....is that "painted into a corner"? Clearly you have no idea what that term means


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I think she really likes you.    Lol.


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


You have no idea. She follows me from thread to thread desperately trying to get my attention with nonsense (such as the "painted into the corner" above). I've tried to tell her that she's far too old for me but she's having _none_ of it.


----------



## ChrisL (May 22, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Maybe you should be flattered.  Lol.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I would be if it were _you_..... 

But sadly she's an angry old cougar who hates liberty and the U.S. Constitution. I just can't bring myself to be flattered by that.


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



You’re living proof that the world can take a joke.

Just pointing out the 2nd Amendment says “well regulated militia”, your messiah’s opposition to gun ownership, etc…  Winding you two losers up and watching you spin for me is just an added bonus.


----------



## Contumacious (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Why can't you get through your thick skull that me and my motorcycle are part of a well regulated militia


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> You’re living proof that the world can take a joke.
> 
> Just pointing out the 2nd Amendment says “well regulated militia”, your messiah’s opposition to gun ownership, etc… Winding you two losers up and watching you spin for me is just an added bonus.



So explain to us what a well regulated militia is.  Nowhere does it say a regulated militia by government.  A Governor of a state can make claim the entire state is a militia and there would be nothing you can do about it.


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > You’re living proof that the world can take a joke.
> ...



And in the first court challenge when said Governor has to show “well regulated”, what evidence would pass muster with the proverbial 3 judge panel?

Are there uniforms?
Is there a website—most places have one now?
Are they paid—provisions for their being paid?
How often do they drill?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


A "fact"  that you know you cannot show to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.


You know this is irrelevant, because you know 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.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Winding you two losers up and watching you spin for me is just an added bonus.



See what I mean ChrisL? Openly admitting doing _anything_ she can to get my attention? She so wants to believe she can "wind me up" or that I would "spin" for her. Ahh the fantasies of cougars...


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Don’t have to re-write it; “well regulated militia” are already in the amendment.
> ...


I've posted so much evidence of that - at one point she literally started crying and asked me to stop. True story


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Winding you two losers up and watching you spin for me is just an added bonus.
> ...



The second amendment says “well regulated militia”.  IF you’re not in one, sorry, no gun for you.

Time for you to spin.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Then why do I own a small arsenal of guns despite never having been in a militia?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> The second amendment says “well regulated militia”.  IF you’re not in one, sorry, no gun for you.


You know this is a lie, because you know 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.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Wrong

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmarkcase in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies tofederal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by _McDonald v. Chicago_ (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]


----------



## Dragonlady (May 23, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Then why do I own a small arsenal of guns despite never having been in a militia?



Because you're a paranoid pussy who would wet his pants from fear without his gun to protect him.  Why would anyone own a gun if not for fear of everyone around him.  What a sad way to go through life.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


She knows.
She's lying.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Because you're a paranoid pussy who would wet his pants from fear without his gun to protect him.  Why would anyone own a gun if not for fear of everyone around him.


There are literally dozens of traditionally legal purposes for a gun, and thus, reasons to own them.
Why don't you know this?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 23, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do I own a small arsenal of guns despite never having been in a militia?
> ...



There are many reasons to own guns.

I like to shoot skeet and have several shotguns, I like to target shoot and have several handguns

I'm not afraid of anyone in fact anyone who makes the decision to break into my house while I am there or who attempts to harm my wife are the ones who should be afraid.

And FYI being prepared to defend yourself is prudence not fear

Thinking you don't have to ever defend yourself is naive and living in denial


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do I own a small arsenal of guns despite never having been in a militia?
> ...


Bwahahaha! Yeah....it's so "paranoid" to recognize reality. That is _vintage_ liberalism right there. Close your eyes really tight and ignore reality in favor of idealism


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do I own a small arsenal of guns despite never having been in a militia?
> ...


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



We’ll see after HRC puts some new justices on the court.


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



All too easy.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Yeah...that's what you guys said after Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama..... How'd all of that work out for you?


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do I own a small arsenal of guns despite never having been in a militia?
> ...



Just like my *right* to keep and bear arms....


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do I own a small arsenal of guns despite never having been in a militia?
> ...



Vintage Dragonlady libtard "logic": all of those little paranoid "pussies" in the Newtown massacre didn't needs guns to protect them. Those little children should have died like _men_ 

Fuck'n little "pussy" kindergarteners and first graders. Why couldn't they just "man" up and die?

You can always count on a libtard to make an irrational and illogical case


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

Love it.  One 3 word post from me gets you to post 3 times in response.  That is what you call effectiveness.  

And guess what, the 2nd Amendment still says “A well-regulated militia…”  You can’t change it, you can’t ignore it….

Now spin the other way for me little man….  ChrisL  I don’t think he likes dancing alone.  Perhaps you should join in.  I also hear his hand falls asleep while making love…. Perhaps you can help him out there too sweetie.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Love it.  One 3 word post from me gets you to post 3 times in response.  That is what you call effectiveness.
> 
> And guess what, the 2nd Amendment still says “A well-regulated militia…”  You can’t change it, you can’t ignore it….
> 
> Now spin the other way for me little man….  ChrisL  I don’t think he likes dancing alone.  Perhaps you should join in.  I also hear his hand falls asleep while making love…. Perhaps you can help him out there too sweetie.



Oh I know you "love it". You're so desperate for my attention, I guarantee you're on cloud 9 with a 3-to-1 ratio. But one problem....you still haven't explained how it is that I legally own a small arsenal despite never having served as part of a "militia".


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> And guess what, the 2nd Amendment still says “A well-regulated militia…”  You can’t change it, you can’t ignore it….


And guess what -  you know this is irrelevant, because you know 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.


----------



## ChrisL (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Love it.  One 3 word post from me gets you to post 3 times in response.  That is what you call effectiveness.
> 
> And guess what, the 2nd Amendment still says “A well-regulated militia…”  You can’t change it, you can’t ignore it….
> 
> Now spin the other way for me little man….  ChrisL  I don’t think he likes dancing alone.  Perhaps you should join in.  I also hear his hand falls asleep while making love…. Perhaps you can help him out there too sweetie.



That's awfully strange then, because since the creation of the Bill of Rights, people who were not part of a "militia" have owned guns.    That proves you wrong right there, corn cob.


----------



## ChrisL (May 23, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Love it.  One 3 word post from me gets you to post 3 times in response.  That is what you call effectiveness.
> ...



I think corny is fantasizing about you!    Lol.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Story of my life right there. Has to be someone like _her_ instead of someone like you....


----------



## ChrisL (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Love it.  One 3 word post from me gets you to post 3 times in response.  That is what you call effectiveness.
> 
> And guess what, the 2nd Amendment still says “A well-regulated militia…”  You can’t change it, you can’t ignore it….
> 
> Now spin the other way for me little man….  ChrisL  I don’t think he likes dancing alone.  Perhaps you should join in.  I also hear his hand falls asleep while making love…. Perhaps you can help him out there too sweetie.



Corny!  Cool your jets!  Thread's not about your weird sexual fantasies!


----------



## Dragonlady (May 23, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Because you're a paranoid pussy who would wet his pants from fear without his gun to protect him.  Why would anyone own a gun if not for fear of everyone around him.
> ...




I do know there are legitimate purposes for owning firearms but doubt Rottweiler is a farmer, or a hunter for that matter. 

My daughter has a rifle which she used to protect her chicken coup from from coyotes and foxes. My cousin goes moose hunting to feed his family.  We had a rifle at our summer cottage, because of bears. 

All of my farmer friends and neighbours who own livestock own a rifle, both for protection of their livestock from predators and for humanely putting down  

There is no legitimate reason for an urban civilian to own a private arsenal of weapons. 

Studies show that fewer and fewer American households, on a percentage basis, own guns. But those that do, are buying more and more weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Funny then how you asked "Why would anyone own* a* gun if not for fear of everyone around him?"


> There is no legitimate reason for an urban civilian to own a private arsenal of weapons.


Except for the dozens and dozens of traditionally legal uses for a firearm, including uses not related to farming and/or hunting.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



So now you agree that the second upholds the individual's right to bear arms?

So you were wrong?

And don't get too cock sure about what the Supreme court will do.  No one knows if they'll even hear a second amendment case anytime soon


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



No.
I agree that a set of justices saw it one way.
Perhaps we will see what another, more enlightened, set of justices have to say about it.

The Roberts court seems to want to fix things.  We’ll see if they take it up in a few years with the new and improved justices.  

You’re 100% correct; nobody knows what you unleash with these people.  I didn’t see how they could say Obama care was constitutional but they did.


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Love it.  One 3 word post from me gets you to post 3 times in response.  That is what you call effectiveness.
> ...



He opened the door by mentioning his micro-penis.  Perhaps you could help him find his manhood (bring some binoculars and possibly an electron microscope).


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



And you were wrong to say otherwise as those judges hold the last word on what the constitution means or doesn't mean.

I won't hold my breath waiting for any fundamental changes in the interpretation of the second but I encourage you and any other control freak who wants to tell people they don't have the right to own a firearm to take a deep breath and wait


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Time will tell.


----------



## ChrisL (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You seem to be obsessed with his pecker.


----------



## candycorn (May 23, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Yet here you are bringing it up.


----------



## ChrisL (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You brought it up.


----------



## ChrisL (May 23, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You're the only one here talking about sex!  Lol.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (May 24, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> I do know there are legitimate purposes for owning firearms but doubt Rottweiler is a farmer, or a hunter for that matter.
> 
> My daughter has a rifle which she used to protect her chicken coup from from coyotes and foxes. My cousin goes moose hunting to feed his family. We had a rifle at our summer cottage, because of bears.
> 
> ...



I think what you should do is buy or rent a home in my area for a couple of years and then come back here and tell us there is no need for an urbanite to own firearms. 

During the housing bubble with no money down needed and no credit check, the lowlifes from the inner-city moved into my suburb.  One year, we had three murders all in less than a mile from my home.  

I never owned a firearm until I came home one Saturday after work and found my door busted down.  I knew the people who did it too.  They didn't think I knew who it was, but I played the game. 

So I let them know I just bought a gun.  I even showed it to them.  I told them that whoever the lowlife was that broke into my home, I was going to empty my barrel in them when they came back.  I told them I quit answering my phone and have a friend come over from time to time to take my car away so it looked like I wasn't home just to lure them back in. 

Guess what?  They disappeared and never came back. 

You see it doesn't matter how many guns or what kind of guns law abiding citizens have.  It's the idea that our laws allow people to conceal and use firearms for protection with the blessing of our governments.  That's what keeps people from attacking others or breaking into houses.  

Take that away from people, and it will be a criminals paradise.


----------



## Centinel (May 24, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> These people are saying there are NO exceptions to the right to bear arms based on the fact there are no STATED exceptions in the text of the amendment.


Congress has NO legislative authority to enact a law limiting the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the several states.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


First - love the wording. "Opened the door". Corny thinks I invited her into some form of a relationship - which she _desperately_ wants with me. Second - I've never mentioned anything about my body. What I did mention was how much you lived to bend over and take it in the butt. Man was that a mistake. Should have never fed into your fetish. Ever since then, it's all you can talk about. You really have a thing for anal sex and now me as well. I'm not sure there has ever been a cougar as desperate for companionship as you are. Maybe if you weren't such an unhinged liberal lunatic you _might_ have more luck? Just a thought corny. Then again, it's been my experience that liberal women are as ugly on the outside as they are on the inside, so it probably wouldn't matter all that much.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You're in real danger CL! She doesn't like our "relationship" at _all_. I hope you don't own a rabbit. If you do, you might wake up one day to find it boiling on a pot on your stove....


----------



## ChrisL (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I do own one actually.  Leave my bunny out of it!


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Oh nooooooooo! Please secure that poor little bunny....Corny is one _crazy_ broad. She'll do it CL.


----------



## ChrisL (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Nobody could hurt my bunny.  He's too cute!


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Cute.....as....._hell_


----------



## ChrisL (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



He has mad skills too.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


LMAO!!!


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> No.
> I agree that a set of justices saw it one way.
> Perhaps we will see what another, more enlightened, set of justices have to say about it.



You mean justices who see the _Heller _ruling as an impediment to their political agenda and seek -- SEEK -- to overturn it regardless of how weak and/or dishonest their argument is for doing so?  _Those _"enlightened" justices?


Glad to see you have no qualms about putting your mindless partisan bigotry on display for all to see.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> You’re 100% correct; nobody knows what you unleash with these people.



You know what I _do_ know though Corny? That I've never been a member of a militia and yet I still legally own a small arsenal....


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 3, 2016)

*GUN CONTROL *

*PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE*


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Banning guns sure is working out well in Chicago.... 

Murder of Teenage Boy Caps Bloodiest May in Democratic Chicago For 21 Years - Breitbart


----------



## P@triot (Jun 5, 2016)

Another day, another shooting in a "gun free" zone. It's remarkable how liberals ignore reality in favor of ideology....

UCLA Shooting: Another Gun Free Zone


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 5, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Another day, another shooting in a "gun free" zone. It's remarkable how liberals ignore reality in favor of ideology....
> 
> UCLA Shooting: Another Gun Free Zone


What reality, if there was no "gun free" zones, there would still be violence....


----------



## P@triot (Jun 5, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Another day, another shooting in a "gun free" zone. It's remarkable how liberals ignore reality in favor of ideology....
> ...


How many shootings have you seen at the White House? Police Stations? NRA meetings?

While there would still be violence, and there will still even be shooting, you'd never see another mass shooting again if we eliminated "gun free" zones. Because the moment a shooter started shooting, he'd be heavily outnumbered by people who are able to defend themselves.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Jun 5, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> What reality, if there was no "gun free" zones, there would still be violence....



Maybe, but if we could reduce the deaths from a nut from 10 to perhaps 3, then it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 5, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Another day, another shooting in a "gun free" zone. It's remarkable how liberals ignore reality in favor of ideology....
> ...



Gun free zones are stupid.  They don't save lives.  It's like announcing to psychos that "here is the place to kill a whole bunch of people without putting yourself at risk!"


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 5, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Banning guns sure is working out well in Chicago....
> 
> Murder of Teenage Boy Caps Bloodiest May in Democratic Chicago For 21 Years - Breitbart



A lot of these killings in the inner cities are just gang members killing other gang members.  Not sure about this particular incident, but it sounds more likely than not.  

So, let them wipe each other out.    These idiots who are involved in gangs and "turf" wars don't invoke any sympathy on my part.  As the saying goes, "live by the sword, die by the sword."  (or gun in this case)


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 5, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Yeah, notice how many court rooms they blast out of with gats? It's a gun free zone also..


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 5, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Security guards are NOT unarmed in courthouses.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 5, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


it's a_ one way street gun free zone_...


----------



## rdean (Jun 5, 2016)

And they have a right to carry them locked and loaded at the GOP convention.  Don't give up on that right.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 5, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



I don't know what that means, but some gun free zones prevent anyone from carrying, and some allow just certain people to carry.  The cops and security guards are allowed to carry in courthouses, at least the ones around here.  All the security guards are armed around here.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 5, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


We don't have any, they are called bailiffs here...


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 5, 2016)

Just like we have marshals and not police chiefs...But no Miss. Kitty...


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 5, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Well, maybe that's what they call them here.  I don't frequent courthouses so I'm not sure, but . . . same idea.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2016)

The fact is - we only need our 2nd Amendment rights because of liberals. They are the one's violating the U.S. Constitution and oppressing everyone in government, and they are the one's committing all of the violent crimes on the streets....

Sheriff David Clarke Tears Into Obama Justice Dept. Over Anti-Trump Rioters: ‘Same Type of Tactics That Were Used in the Jim Crow South’


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2016)

The fact is - we only need our 2nd Amendment rights because of liberals. They are the one's violating the U.S. Constitution and oppressing everyone in government, and they are the one's committing all of the violent crimes on the streets. Here are racist liberals violently attacking a couple of Hispanic gentlemen:


----------



## P@triot (Jun 12, 2016)

Just imagine if those people in the Orlando nightclub had the sense to carry a firearm with them. They wouldn't be dead today. Unarmed people make themselves victims. That's what people like Candycorn _want_. Unarmed people that can be oppressed by liberalism. As I stated in the beginning -*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. *I know myself and my loved one's will never end up like that thanks to our founders protecting our rights. Sadly, the explicitly added a Bill of Rights simply out of fear that the government would start to trample the rights of the American people. So they picked 10 specific items that they felt were so critical - they needed extra protraction. And still we have unethical fascists like Candcorn proclaiming that American's don't have the right to keep and bear arms (of course - people like her being completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, American history, and our founders explains part of that).


----------



## P@triot (Jun 15, 2016)

"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." - Frederick Douglass


----------



## P@triot (Jun 16, 2016)

*Labour Party politician shot in "gun free" England*

Jo Cox MP dead after shooting attack - BBC News


----------



## P@triot (Jun 17, 2016)

Boom! _Knockout_...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 17, 2016)

Bwahahahahaha!!!! Liberal lesbians rushing out in droves to buy firearms. Seems that libtards know what they won't admit: *more guns = morse security*. That being armed keeps people safe.



Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting


----------



## P@triot (Jun 17, 2016)

Oh candycorn....


"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set*.* We've *got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded*."

Seems even Barack Obama agrees that I need to have every single "military-grade" weapon that the U.S. military has in its arsenal. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!


----------



## P@triot (Jun 18, 2016)

Yet another in the endless reasons why the American people _need_ firearms. The previous little toddler in Disney World would be alive today if Disney World had allowed his father to carry a gun on him...

Mother fights off mountain lion after it attacks son in Colorado - CNN.com


----------



## P@triot (Jun 19, 2016)

What a _great_ thing for the 2nd Amendment and the American people. Over 30,000 AR-15's sold in just _one_ week since the Orland night club shooting...

Gun Shop Sells 30,000 AR-15s in Week Following Orlando Attack


----------



## P@triot (Jun 20, 2016)

That whole liberal ideology of banning firearms sure is working out really well in Chicago... 

Father's Day weekend in Chicago: 12 murders, 54 shootings - CNN.com


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 20, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



One of your own on USMB seems to think it is and believes it should.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 21, 2016)

Bwahahahahahaha!!! Liberal reporter goes to a gun store to show how "easy" it is and ends up getting denied because he has a history of *domestic violence*. Typical liberal - not only keeping the liberal War on Women raging but also _proving_ his own false narrative is ignorant!

STEINBERG: Would-be terrorists can buy guns, but a reporter? No.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 22, 2016)

How to stop a massacre in 30 seconds. Thank GOD for our *right* to keep _and_ bear arms...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 22, 2016)




----------



## HUGGY (Jun 22, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> No need to thank 'God'. Humans are the source of vocabulary.



Right.  Humans such as Smith and Wesson, Browning, Remington and Ruger.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 23, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > No need to thank 'God'. Humans are the source of vocabulary.
> ...


Hardly, as they are 'persons' (corporations), not people and merely profit from something people provided as a right to U.S. citizens.


----------



## Markle (Jun 23, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



A dear friend of mine once had a lop eared wabbit named Farley.  She'd let him out in the privacy fenced back yard.  He would spend hours digging a trench next to the fence and behind her rose bushes.  It was about 10' on each side of the corner.  My friend would fill it in, pack it down and cover it with pine bark and he'd be right back at it the next time he was out.


----------



## Markle (Jun 23, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Another day, another shooting in a "gun free" zone. It's remarkable how liberals ignore reality in favor of ideology....
> ...



Yep, just less of it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 23, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



Yeah, thank God this one woman survived and thank God 10,000 people who weren't this woman will die this year. At least this woman is alive, that's all that matters. Nuclear holocaust? No problem, as long as this one woman survives.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 23, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...




You are a corporate entity as well.......your birth certificate created your straw man fiction. Notice how all your bank statements are "all capped", your birth certificate has your name in "all caps"....social security card, "all caps", any bill you get has your name in "all caps", your driver's license has your name in "all caps"...any summons or court docket has your name in "all caps"? Because you were incorporated and this massive corporate entity that is your beloved "gubermint" is a corporation. Up until the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933, a birth certificate was not required but since the robber barons already owned the land, banks and the biggest corporations due to the orchestrated Crash of 1929? They needed more collateral so FDR pledged our labor and the birth certificate came to be...it's printed on bond paper and since we are under the UCC (Universal Commercial Code) anything can be monetized and used as a negotiable instrument. Our future labor was pledged as surety against the debt and "da gubermint" borrowed against your potential for earning, paying taxes and other "gubermint" fees in order to have credit extended to this corporate entity by the robber barons. They use actuary tables to give that boind a "benchmark" value and it can change based on how well you do. This is a fact and it's not even disputable because you can actually look up what your bond is worth if you have the CUSIP number. "Da gubermint" made themselves trustees of that bond when you signed up for Social Security thus making yourself an "employee" of USA.INC and a U.S citizen...not an American, mind you...but a citizen and employee of USA.INC whose corporate headquarters are in the city state of Washington D.C.........this is a fact. This is why the corporate entities despise people like me that turned in their corporate citizenship in lieu of their natural born rights and opted out of the UCC. We are considered "extremists" for opting out of being a slave on the plantation.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 23, 2016)

The above post may be speaking to someone here, but is obviously incorrect in being address to 'there4eyeM'. Its manner of speaking as if knowing 'there4eyeM' betrays this fact, as he/she knows nothing of 'there4eyeM'. His/her projection (typical of so many on these threads) betrays, also, a limited intellectual capacity with which 'there4eyeM' will not engage. He/she should not expect to have direct responses to his/her posts.
Over and out.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 23, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> The above post may be speaking to someone here, but is obviously incorrect in being address to 'there4eyeM'. Its manner of speaking as if knowing 'there4eyeM' betrays this fact, as he/she knows nothing of 'there4eyeM'. His/her projection (typical of so many on these threads) betrays, also, a limited intellectual capacity with which 'there4eyeM' will not engage. He/she should not expect to have direct responses to his/her posts.
> Over and out.



Yeah, best for you to avoid what I write since you have no hope of refuting it.....you see? I know more than you....infinitely more.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 23, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> The above post may be speaking to someone here, but is obviously incorrect in being address to 'there4eyeM'. Its manner of speaking as if knowing 'there4eyeM' betrays this fact, as he/she knows nothing of 'there4eyeM'. His/her projection (typical of so many on these threads) betrays, also, a limited intellectual capacity with which 'there4eyeM' will not engage. He/she should not expect to have direct responses to his/her posts.
> Over and out.



I understand where the poster you responded to is coming from.  I have many times spoken to the fact that we as a people have been reduced to good consumers.  Everything we see on the "news" is bent on reinforcing the idea that we must conform and produce.  Many of us are offended of the situation we have inherited and the conditions of the bond we are obligated to repay to those that own our present and our future.

Freedom is a myth.  We rave about the fact that our bread lines are shorter than "our enemy's".  Our elections are a charade.  "K" street decides what crumbs we will get as long as it doesn't interfere with the train loads percentage fast tracked to the 1%ers.  

Don't dare speak to the massive theft as the haul gets more grotesque. We used to complain when the bosses fixed outcomes only unjust which was enough to convict.  Now the outcomes are grandiose and the schemes out in the open. The scalawags have learned that they can take as much as they want if they sell the stealing by controlling the message.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


Actually, tens of thousands of people every single year save lives and prevent mass shootings because they were armed. You simply don't hear about it because the crisis was averted and because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda (so they try like hell to keep that shit quiet). If you keep reading this thread, you will see story after story that I posted just like this. And they are bit the very tip of the ice-berg. Literally happens every day in this country.

On a side note - I find it interesting and disturbing that you're so desperate to disarm women. I wonder what your desire for that is. I'm sure most of us can guess. Chilling.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


You're not trying to educate libtards, are you D.S.? You might as well attempt to teach geometry to fire ants. These are people who are so incapable of surviving on their own, they need government to provide them with food, housing, and healthcare. You don't really think they are going to accept reality and reject unconstitutional government, do you?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 23, 2016)

P@triot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Maybe they do.

But the point is rather simple. If the murder rate of the US is 4 times higher than most other western countries, and people are then saving lives even with this 4 times murder rate, then the US has a major problem, right? 

Do you know which state has the highest rape rate? Alaska, loads of guns there. Seems guns don't help women there, do they?


----------



## Vigilante (Jun 23, 2016)




----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 23, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



I get your point and it is futile to try and wake up certain people. They actually seem to want this totalitarian, communist technocratic "One world" government and don't seem to care that when that happens, there goes the Constitution and what is left of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Alaska has many challenges enforcing laws in general.  The distances police must travel to get to any 911 call and the small number of police make it difficult to prevent let alone prosecute many types of crime.  Drug and alcohol abuse is especially "high"  all through out the state.  The Native American population has had an especially high rate of substance abuse.  Meth use is epidemic also. The population gets a big dole from oil revenues which gets spent foolishly by many to "party".  The fishing industry is the same way.  Long work periods with high pay in big chunks with little to do makes for bad behavior.  Also the winter months drive the population indoors where drug and alcohol induced behavior leads to abnormally high incidences of rape and assault compared with the lower 48.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 24, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Yeah, it has problems with distances for police, however they have GUNS, who needs police? Isn't that the argument? I mean, this woman who saved herself, she didn't need the police, right? 

NY has the lowest rape rate, by the way, you think it's because of the police now and not guns?

Yeah, so substance abuse is high, but then they STILL HAVE GUNS.

Funny how before it was all guns saving people, now it's all something else.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 24, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yeah, it has problems with distances for police, however they have GUNS, who needs police? Isn't that the argument? I mean, this woman who saved herself, she didn't need the police, right?



Speaking of law enforcement Frig - I'm baffled as to why you aren't demanding they disarm. I don't get it - if guns are so bad - why do you want them to have guns?

And why do you want the president of the United States surrounded by dozens of men with fully automatic weapons? Do you have any idea how irrational you sound when you talk about weapons and never demand that the Secret Service disarms.

Leadership is by example. When police, FBI, U.S. Marshals, ATF, Secret Service, the U.S. military, etc. _all_ permanently disarm, I'll _consider_ disarming myself. Until then - you people just sound like irrational lunatics. Which is exactly what you are.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 24, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Do you know which state has the highest rape rate? Alaska, loads of guns there. Seems guns don't help women there, do they?



And do you want to bet that every single rape victim either didn't own a gun or wasn't armed with it at the moment they were raped? You're _proving_ my point for me. Armed people don't become victims. Unarmed people do. This is pretty basic.


----------



## Wilbur Right (Jun 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Actually, tens of thousands of people every single year save lives and prevent mass shootings because they were armed.






Bullshit. The number is 3 million per year. 
Hell it's over 5000 DGUs per day. 
It's just that no one can prove these numbers. But that doesn't make them any less accurate. According to gun nutters.


----------



## Wilbur Right (Jun 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Armed people don't become victims. Unarmed people do. This is pretty basic.





LMAO. Wanna bet? I bet I could, using the element of surprise, put a gun to your head and it wouldn't make any fucking difference how many guns you had on you.

Or do you not leave the house? I know its scary out there for you.


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded




The invisible man in the sky has nothing to do with your "rights".

"Rights" are man-made, granted by Governments.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2016)

hazlnut said:


> The invisible man in the sky has nothing to do with your "rights".
> "Rights" are man-made, granted by Governments.


Said no reasoned, thinking person, ever.


----------



## Wilbur Right (Jun 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Speaking of law enforcement Frig - I'm baffled as to why you aren't demanding they disarm. I don't get it - if guns are so bad - why do you want them to have guns?






Are you really this fucking stupid?

Why do cops have guns? Is that your question?

To serve and protect American citizens from criminals, thugs, thiefs, murderers, drug dealers and gun nutters that fucking go crazy.

Some people may not want anything to do with guns personally. Doesn't mean they don't think they serve some purpose.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 24, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Armed people don't become victims. Unarmed people do. This is pretty basic.
> ...


"Using the element of surprise"... 

You can't even feed yourself without the government helping you. You're not a ninja junior.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 24, 2016)

Wilbur Right said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of law enforcement Frig - I'm baffled as to why you aren't demanding they disarm. I don't get it - if guns are so bad - why do you want them to have guns?
> ...



And that's exactly why I need to be armed, _stupid_. It's amazing how dumb you people are. It's very easy to get you people to prove our point for us.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 24, 2016)

Markle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Lol!  I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture.  I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 24, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


is it Bare or Bear Arms? what will it be next week? Wolfe Arms?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 24, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Bunny arms.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 24, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I want that bunny!!!  send it to me VIA  UPS !!   Now !!!


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 24, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...



No way!  Get your own bunny arms!


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 24, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


are they on sale at target?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 24, 2016)

Rexx Taylor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...



No bunnies at Target.


----------



## Markle (Jun 24, 2016)

hazlnut said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



Have you always been a few fries short of a Happy Meal or is this something recent?

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

*The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,*

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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript


----------



## P@triot (Jun 25, 2016)

Thank _goodness_ that Chicago outlawed firearms. It certainly kept this woman very safe. Thanks to the Chicago ban she did *not* get shot at all. Not _once_. She was merely stabbed to death.

Family of Murder Victim Furious After Video of Subway Stabbing Goes Viral


----------



## P@triot (Jun 26, 2016)

Here is why we need our 2nd Amendment rights - because libtards resort to violence day in and day out whenever conservatives attempt to hold politics rallies or even speak...

10 Hospitalized in Violent Clash Between Right-Wing Protesters, Counterprotesters at California Capitol


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Half way through the year and Chicago already has *300 murders*. Roughly two per day. That whole liberal gun ban thing is working out really well there... 

Chicago schools to hang peace banners after city's 300th murder  | National Catholic Reporter


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Half way through the year and Chicago already has *300 murders*. Roughly two per day. That whole liberal gun ban thing is working out really well there...
> 
> Chicago schools to hang peace banners after city's 300th murder  | National Catholic Reporter



Yep.  It has been shown that restricting our rights or banning something does NOT stop criminals from breaking the law.  It's just common sense that only LAW ABIDING people are affected by such things.  Murder is already against the law and is subject to the harshest punishments we can provide.  If THAT doesn't deter a murderer, what in the hell is any other law going to do???  Nothing, that's what.


----------



## The Professor (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...



You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. _v_. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

_Held:_

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither _United States_ v. _Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor _Presser_ v. _Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. _United States _v. _Miller_, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, _i.e._, those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. _Miller’_s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
I previously posted this information on another thread but thought I should repeat it just for you.  Don't bother to thank me.  That's why I'm here.


----------



## Camp (Jun 27, 2016)

The Professor said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



I think it's pretty clear what the founders intended when they wrote the BOR.  Lol.  They can't vary from the Constitution with such blatant attempts to hurt the US citizens.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





Wrong......the individual right has been part of our legal tradition since the founding...in fact...Ruth Bader Ginsberg cited that right in an earlier ruling on another case.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Yes...we understand....the actual law means nothing to the left...never has, never will........you can tell by the mass graves that circle the world in countries ruled by unfiltered leftism.........


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. *That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled* and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.



So basically what you're saying is, since the American people overwhelmingly reject the disturbing liberal ideology, preventing you from getting the votes you need to amend the U.S. Constitution, you're going to ignore the will and the voice of the people and attempt to achieve your oppressive views unconstitutionally through 9 *unelected* bureaucrats? Awesome...

Here's the bottom line junior - all you're going to do is kick off another Civil War with your radical and unhinged stupidity. The American people have spoken. The U.S. Constitution has spoken. Our founders have spoken. 9 unelected bureaucrats are *not* going to strip the American people of their Constitutional *rights*. Ever. Even the U.S. military and law enforcement will _overwhelmingly_ oppose that. The fact that you can't accept the will of the American people shows what an oppressive little asshole you are. The people have spoken. Deal with it. When the day comes that the American people agree with your fucked up oppressive ideology, they will give you the votes to amend the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Camp (Jun 27, 2016)

2aguy said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > The Professor said:
> ...


DC vs Heller was about interpreting the definition of "militia" and the rights of the government to "regulate" the militia.


----------



## Camp (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. *That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled* and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.
> ...


No, basically I am saying that we will lose our rights and assorted privileges because fools like you object to even the most reasonable adjustments and have managed to piss off so many Americans with your refusal to adjust that the wave is turning and the control folks are gaining support. Your jackassery does more harm than good.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> DC vs Heller was about interpreting the definition of "militia" and the rights of the government to "regulate" the militia.



"The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say militia. Furthermore, our founders wrote extensively that the right was of the people and not a "militia".

There is *nothing* to "interpret". The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says.


----------



## Camp (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > DC vs Heller was about interpreting the definition of "militia" and the rights of the government to "regulate" the militia.
> ...


What a phony jerk you are. You have never even read the 2nd Amendment. If you had you would not be making such a stupid statement.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


I just quoted it junior - without looking it up. You're pissed off because you can't argue and it proves that you're disturbed ideology is _wrong_.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations.


Untrue.
Heller did not overturn a single precept of any prior ruling by the SCotUS.



> That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled...


Yes.  Just like Roe v Wade, the Obamacare rulings, and same-sex marriage.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> No, basically I am saying that we will lose our rights and assorted privileges because fools like you object to even the most reasonable adjustments...


"Reasonable" adjustments do not include further restrictions on the rights of the law abiding that do noting to prevent criminals from getting guns.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

This shows the child-like rational of the best & brightest that the Dumbocrats have to offer...

*In April, Obama posed the question, “If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?”*

Um....because my life doesn't hinge on being able to unlock my phone. And because tech companies realize the dangers of having a locked phone, they make it so that 911 can be dialed even when the phone is locked. Is Obama going to make legislation so that smart guns fire even when "locked"? And if so, then what in the _hell_ is the point of the smart gun?!?! 

Smart Gun Push Could Conflict With Constitutional Rights


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

And another flaw in the liberal "smart gun" fantasy....

“This [smart gun policy] could compel someone to incriminate themselves,” Greenlee told The Daily Signal. “The Fifth Amendment prevents someone from being compelled. But it seems smart gun owners might have to give up that right.”

The point would be that if only the owner of the gun could use the gun, and police could compel him to identify the weapon, then—so the argument goes—you are requiring him to incriminate himself.

“A good argument here is that you can catch more criminals. But the system is not set up just to catch as many criminals as possible. It’s also to protect the rights of the accused,” Greenlee said.

Smart Gun Push Could Conflict With Constitutional Rights


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. *That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled* and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.
> ...




I like to say, 9, politically appointed, lawyers......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> This shows the child-like rational of the best & brightest that the Dumbocrats have to offer...
> 
> *In April, Obama posed the question, “If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?”*
> 
> ...


When the police issue 'smart guns', I might believe its a good idea.


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 27, 2016)

> *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*



What does God have to do with it?  God isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> 
> 
> What does God have to do with it?  God isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.



More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 27, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*
> ...



Just trying to make a factual point.  Sorry if it confuses you...


----------



## The Professor (Jun 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...



I've already posted a link showing that the SCOTUS ruled the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, unrelated to service in a militia; however, I am not through with you.

You accuse others of ignoring or not knowing the meaning of the term “well regulated militia” as those words appear in the Constitution. Well, sir, I know what they mean as do many others on this forum. If you want to see someone who is uniformed about the legal meaning (the only one that counts) I suggest you look in the mirror.

I have a few questions for you (don't bother to answer, I am just being rhetorical). In the entire history of the United States, from Canada to Mexico and from sea to shining sea how many people were ever arrested for carrying a gun because they were not members of a militia? I am going to guess that the total number was: zero. It appears you think you know more than the members of the Supreme Court and more than all the prosecutors and law enforcement personal in the country. C,mon now, if the law really says only members of the militia can keep and bear arms, why is no one enforcing this? I don't think it's because you know something they don't; rather, it's about something they all know that you don't

In fact, I believe you called Obama stupid, unknowingly of course. If Obama was as smart as you are, he could achieve complete gun control with a stroke of his pen and he could do it with just one sentence: “It shall be a felony for any person to sell [describe weapons here] unless the purchaser has submitted proper documentation proving he/she is a member of the militia in good standing.” Perhaps Obama just doesn't know. Perhaps you should tell him. I'm sure you'll be rewarded with a cabinet position. OK, I'm being facetious; the only reason Obama won't do it is because he knows better.

You accused those who disagree with you as being indifferent and ignorant; however, it is apparent that every one of these people are more concerned and better informed than you are. It is also likely they are more intelligent than you are since really intelligent people do not express strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about. As a member of the large class of people you insulted, I accept your apology. Now I am through with you and this thread.


----------



## Camp (Jun 27, 2016)

The Professor said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


You simply do not know the definition of militia when it was written into the 2nd Amendment. It meant every able-bodied man in the community, hence, almost every citizen (male at the time) was considered a member of the militia, hence, the individual right was established not for just any citizen, but rather for every individual that was qualified to be a member of the militia, which meant almost everyone. Obama could not make people prove that they are in a militia. Everyone, or at least almost everyone becomes a part of the militia at birth or upon becoming a citizen.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2016)

Camp said:


> You simply do not know the definition of militia when it was written into the 2nd Amendment. It meant every able-bodied man in the community, hence, almost every citizen (male at the time) was considered a member of the militia, hence, the individual right was established not for just any citizen, but rather for every individual that was qualified to be a member of the militia, which meant almost everyone. Obama could not make people prove that they are in a militia. Everyone, or at least almost everyone becomes a part of the militia at birth or upon becoming a citizen.


The right of the people.
Not the right of the militia.
Not the right of the people in the militia.
The right of the people.

My wheelchair-bound grandmother has the same right to keep and bear arms as by 18yr old athlete son.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 30, 2016)

Happens _every_ single day in America (even though libtards deny it)...

Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub


----------



## P@triot (Jul 15, 2016)

Where are the liberal calls to ban automobiles?!? Not only do they kill more people _every_ year than guns but they are also routinely used as weapons...

Terror attack kills scores in Nice, France, Hollande says - CNN.com


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 16, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Where are the liberal calls to ban automobiles?!? Not only do they kill more people _every_ year than guns but they are also routinely used as weapons...
> 
> Terror attack kills scores in Nice, France, Hollande says - CNN.com



Because guns scare them more.


----------



## rdean (Jul 16, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


I really think you should be carrying them to the GOP convention.

Just in case.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 16, 2016)

rdean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


Only a fool wouldn't carry one to the GOP convention. You may not be able to take it inside with you, but you'll certainly want to take one with you for the commute there and back considering the recent history of libtard violence against Trump supporters.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 16, 2016)

rdean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



Hm.  There was a time in history when men carried their guns pretty much everywhere.  There was no such thing as a "gun free zone."  Kids and crazies weren't shooting up schools and clubs back then.  Seems like you liberals with your good intentions end up backfiring on you in most cases.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 18, 2016)

Thank goodness that liberals outlawed firearms in Chicago. Otherwise, imagine all of the lives that would have been lost in that city over the past few years...

House party shooting closes violent weekend in Chicago: 7 dead, 52 wounded


----------



## Neotrotsky (Jul 18, 2016)

*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*


agree


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2016)

Thank the anti-federalists for the bill of rights, without which there'd no longer be a right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 26, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thank the anti-federalists for the bill of rights, without which there'd no longer be a right to keep and bear arms.


The scary part is  - even Alexander Hamilton (who was a federalist idiot looking to hand over more power to the federal government) predicted what would happen if we _did_ implement a Bill of Rights (and it is _exactly_ what has happened):

Federalist No. 84:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, *but would even be dangerous*. *They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted*. *For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do*? *Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed*? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; *but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power*. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

To summarize - Alexander Hamilton accurately predicted that putting in Bill of Rights would be used by people looking to usurp the Constitution and consolidate power to proclaim that rights are limited to the Bill of Rights instead of recognizing that your rights are unlimited and that the Bill of Rights was just an extra layer of protection for the rights that the founders felt were the most critical.

Which...incidentally...is what makes the idiot liberals look extra special stupid when they try to make a case against the 2nd Amendment. The founders felt that it was so critical to have an armed citizenry, they added it to the Bill of Rights as an extra level of protection. Sadly, idiots like Alexandar Hamilton helped created the unconstitutional monstrosity we have in Washington D.C. right now. Even more tragic is that he saw how people would attempt to pervert the Constitution and use the Bill of Rights as a platform to do it.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 26, 2016)

Yet another example of why our 2nd Amendment rights are so crucial. Dirt-bag liberals are already publicly discussing what possibilities exist for a "coup" should the American people decide they want Donald Trump over Hitlery Clinton...

If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 30, 2016)

_Every_. Single. Day.

Every single day in this country lives are saved and crimes are averted because of an armed citizens *right* to keep and bear arms.

Homeowner, Robbed at Gunpoint 7 Years Ago, Brings a Little Something Extra When He Hears Strange Knock at Door


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 1, 2016)

P@triot said:


> _Every_. Single. Day.
> Every single day in this country lives are saved and crimes are averted because of an armed citizens *right* to keep and bear arms.
> Homeowner, Robbed at Gunpoint 7 Years Ago, Brings a Little Something Extra When He Hears Strange Knock at Door


But...but.... ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## P@triot (Aug 15, 2016)




----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 15, 2016)

P@triot said:


> View attachment 85607




seems to be a pattern here


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

"Gun Free" Zones are failing throughout the world. In turn, it's one of many things proving liberalism is failing throughout the world...

Gun Free Zones Are Failing Throughout The World


----------



## P@triot (Aug 25, 2016)

You have to love ignorant left-wing "logic". It's ok if people *die* so long as it's not by a shooting. 

Mia Ayliffe-Chung sure needed a gun yesterday. If Australia wasn't an inbred, backwoods, authoritarian state, she'd still be alive today...

Man Shouting “Allahu Akbar” Stabs British Woman; Authorities Say ‘Nothing to do With Religion’


----------



## P@triot (Aug 26, 2016)

Proof that the entire liberal narrative about their concern for those in poverty is *false*. They had the perfect opportunity here for complete bipartisan support to lift fees, taxes, and various other costly regulations on those below the poverty line to ensure that they were compliant with important gun laws. And what did the Dumbocrats do? In one case, unanimously voted it down and in another case, blocked the legislation from even being voted upon.

They are exponentially more interested in disarming the American people than they are in helping those in poverty. There is no denying it. The audio is damning.

Gun Expert Blows Away Stats Used by Democrats


----------



## P@triot (Aug 26, 2016)

Additional damning audio on the *false* liberal narrative. Their statistics show a 100% rate of increased murders (sometimes as high as 6x's, 7x's, or 8x's as much) for nations that ban guns and keep statistics. Not even a _single_ case by dumb luck that the murder rate went down.

Gun Expert Blows Away Stats Used by Democrats


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 26, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



Neither is Roe v. Wade yet that seems to freak you paranoids out on "choice". The difference between the two is that we don't have to worry about illegal abortions but we still have the problem of illegal guns.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 17, 2016)

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...


Oh we still have illegal abortions to worry about. Just ask Kermit Gosnell _and_ Planned Parenthood.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 17, 2016)

More indisputable proof that we desperately need our right to keep and bear arms even today (and probably more so today)...

FBI Investigating After Man Allegedly Yells ‘Allah Akbar’ During Possible Islamic State-Linked Attack


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2016)

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...



Really?  So we should ignore Trump's promise to appoint 'pro-life' judges?


----------



## jillian (Sep 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



G-d has nothing to do with it.

and a lot more people hurt themselves and other innocents than "Defend" themselves.

you are aware that the second was never supposed to be for personal protection, right? but was intended to defend the government....hence the "well-regulated militia".

funny how pretend constitutionalists always forget that.


----------



## owebo (Sep 17, 2016)

jillian said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


Link?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Sep 17, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



pro life judges have been added before. What changed?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2016)

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > LeftofLeft said:
> ...



When did the Court have an anti-Roe v Wade majority?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 17, 2016)

jillian said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


You're aware that you don't know a damn thing about the U.S. Constitution, right?

The 2nd Amendment was absolutely implemented for the purposes of "personal protection" (as you put it). Mostly _from_ the government - not to "defend" it. But hey - when has a progressive ever studied history or learned from it?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 17, 2016)

owebo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You can't link to something that didn't happen! That's why her posts never include links.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 17, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Really?  So we should ignore Trump's promise to appoint 'pro-life' judges?


Why not? You advocate that we should ignore Hitlery's threats to appoint 'anti-gun' progressive activists to the Supreme Court. *Idiot*.

You contradict you own position from one post to the next!!!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  So we should ignore Trump's promise to appoint 'pro-life' judges?
> ...



I don't take a position in that post dumbass.  It's a question.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Was that a hard question?  Anyone?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 17, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


OMG....yes you *did*, dumb-ass. LeftOfLeft's question to you was in response to your idiotic post #10:



NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



No wonder you're a progressive. You can't even follow along. You're idiotic position is that we don't need to worry about the 2nd Amendment despite the fact that progressives are promising to rid the world of firearms. Meanwhile, you worry about Roe v. Wade going away. LeftOfLeft pointed out your idiotic hypocrisy on these points.

And I have to waste time explaining your own posts on a thread because you don't have the intellect to follow along or even remember your own positions


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You apparently have no idea what it takes to repeal a Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 17, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Sure I do. Just an idiot progressive in a position of power. New York completely repealed the 2nd Amendment the moment Bill DeBlasio was sworn in. Or have you forgotten that you go to prison for a decade if you have a gun on you in New York?

Chicago also repealed the 2nd Amendment many years ago. Washington D.C. likewise - though it was overturned in the Heller decision.

It's amazing how dense you are. How you have no idea what is actually going on in the United States. Just one idiot progressive in power will abuse his or her position and illegally repeal the 2nd Amendment. Hell...Obergefell v. Hodges repealed the _entire_ U.S. Constitution. Do you _ever_ watch the news or read a newspaper?!?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Sep 17, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Would it be so bad if we had judges that ruled if a child survives a botched abortion, he/she should not be left in a dark room to die? That is an extreme instance I think both sides can agree.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Sep 17, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Neither do you. You really think Judges are going to be successful overturning Roe v Wade? Judges taking away guns is a more likely scenario even with a packed pro life benches.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 17, 2016)

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > LeftofLeft said:
> ...



I would agree with that.  That is terribly cruel.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 19, 2016)

jillian said:


> you are aware that the second was never supposed to be for personal protection, right? but was intended to defend the government....hence the "well-regulated militia".


You know this statement is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> You're aware that you don't know a damn thing about the U.S. Constitution, right?


Not true!
She knows what she overhears while shining shoes at some backwoods Mississippi county courthouse.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 19, 2016)

Thank God we still have the right to keep and bear arms. Yet _another_ mass murder averted thanks to an armed citizen...

Hero who stopped ISIS mall attacker is making liberals CRAZY - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com


----------



## P@triot (Sep 19, 2016)

Just imagine if this officer was unarmed as progressives want all citizens to be....

Police: Man Attacks Officer With Meat Cleaver Near New York’s Madison Square Garden


----------



## P@triot (Sep 24, 2016)

Yet another crime prevented thanks to armed citizens...

Gun-Wielding Woman Saves Husband From Armed Robbers


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 24, 2016)

I still can't figure out why these assholes want citizens to be unarmed and at the mercy of the criminals, murderers, rapists.  It's just sick.  Then they will tell us that the police are racists, yet they want ONLY the police and criminals armed, and the rest of us are caught in the middle.


----------



## paulitician (Sep 24, 2016)

People better be aware of what's going on. The Democrats will continue fomenting violent civil unrest. Especially the racial violence. I advise Americans to exercise their Constitutional Right to bear arms. Things are only gonna get worse. The Democrats want it that way. 

Acquire a firearm and become proficient with its use. Only you can really protect yourself and your family. Don't count on others to save you. Always be prepared for worst-case scenarios. Because those worst-case scenarios are becoming much more frequent.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 24, 2016)

Or learn to make pepper spray...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 24, 2016)

paulitician said:


> People better be aware of what's going on. The Democrats will continue fomenting violent civil unrest. Especially the racial violence. I advise Americans to exercise their Constitutional Right to bear arms. Things are only gonna get worse. The Democrats want it that way.
> 
> Acquire a firearm and become proficient with its use. Only you can really protect yourself and your family. Don't count on others to save you. Always be prepared for worst-case scenarios. Because those worst-case scenarios are becoming much more frequent.


Great points all around paulitician. I would add that even before the Dumbocrats started all of this shit it was only prudent for every citizen to be proficient with a firearm and to keep it on them at all times. You and you alone are responsible for your personal security. It is not the job of law enforcement. They would have to assign a least one officer to each and every citizen to ensure your security. And even then our civil rights prevent them from being proactive.


----------



## paulitician (Sep 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > People better be aware of what's going on. The Democrats will continue fomenting violent civil unrest. Especially the racial violence. I advise Americans to exercise their Constitutional Right to bear arms. Things are only gonna get worse. The Democrats want it that way.
> ...



Yeah, i wouldn't count on Politicians and Law Enforcement to save you. There will be more civil unrest. But the biggest problem is, most people believe nothing bad can ever happen to them. They believe it can only happen to someone else. But the reality is, violent assault can happen to anyone at anytime. 

So i would advise making sure you and your loved ones are prepared and protected. Educate them all on the proficient use of firearms. Hit the shooting range often with them. Help them become comfortable with the firearms. I see it as no longer being a choice. You have to take the proper steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. That's how i feel anyway.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 24, 2016)

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms. These two ladies are alive and unharmed because of that right...

Armed intruders kicked in the door. What they found was a woman opening fire.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 24, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (Sep 29, 2016)

And to think that idiot progressives declare that nobody needs a gun to defend themselves...

*DHS Head To America: Brace For More Terror Attacks*

Department of Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson informed Americans on Wednesday that the country is likely to suffer more domestic terror attacks

DHS Head to America: Brace for More Terror Attacks


----------



## P@triot (Sep 30, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (Sep 30, 2016)

This is some _powerful_ audio here. It really illustrates the astounding ignorance of progressives when it comes to firearms. It illustrates that they have an irrational fear of firearms. Just the first 3 minutes alone will make your jaw drop as you laugh hysterically at things that progressives leaders have said about firearms and introduced into legislation. 

You'll also be stunned to hear the real *facts* about what has happened in other nations after they outlawed firearms (hint: crime skyrocketed - sometimes as much as 800%).

Serial: The History of Gun Control


----------



## P@triot (Sep 30, 2016)

Astounding facts and figures....

Here is what happened after Australia confiscated their firearms:

Armed Robbery *increased 69%*

Assault with a firearm *increased 28%*

Gun murders *increased 19%*

Home invasions *increased 21%*
Serial: The History of Gun Control II


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2016)

Wow, those European gun laws that progressives want to model here in America sure are working out well...

Kim Kardashian West held at gunpoint, robbed in Paris - CNN.com


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2016)

The second half of this is astounding. It captures the lies of progressives and it gives the actual data (from 2009 to 2014 there were 25 mass shootings and *92%* of them were in "gun free" zones). In addition - the mass shooters themselves are on record stating that they targeted "gun free" zones.

Serial: The History of Gun Control III


----------



## P@triot (Oct 10, 2016)

And there isn't a damn thing that progressives can do about it...

Come and Take It: “disintermediating the state,” one 3D-printed gun at a time


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 10, 2016)

yup


----------



## P@triot (Oct 10, 2016)

Bwahahahahah! Another idiot hypocrite progressive....

Gun Control Advocate Kim Kardashian Ups Security after Robbery


----------



## Contumacious (Oct 14, 2016)

Once Killary becomes president the right will be reduced to a privilege subject to bureaucratic discretion. 

The new SCOTUS majority  will rule that Americans do not have an individual right to bear arms - that they have a PRIVILEGE subject to bureaucratic discretion.


.


----------



## Contumacious (Oct 14, 2016)

Contumacious said:


> Once Killary becomes president the right will be reduced to a privilege subject to bureaucratic discretion.
> 
> The new SCOTUS majority  will rule that Americans do not have an individual right to bear arms - that they have a PRIVILEGE subject to bureaucratic discretion.
> 
> ...




Bump

.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2016)

Another day, another crime prevented thanks to our right to keep and bear arms...

Carjacker repeatedly punches 71-year-old driver in the head — right up until the victim pulls out his concealed handgun


----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2016)

Another day, yet _another_ crime prevented thanks to our right to keep and bear arms...

Resident hears pounding at front door and arms himself. Then man allegedly charges at him — big mistake.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 27, 2016)

Another day another 100 people are dead because there was s gun in the house. Your one life saved hardly makes up for the 100 lost


----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Another day another 100 people are dead because there was s gun in the house. Your one life saved hardly makes up for the 100 lost


You're false stats and propaganda hardly makes up for the *facts* and *reality*. Furthermore, even if your b.s. was real - I'll take 100 accidents if it means preventing crime _any_ day. I can live with accidents. Becoming a victim is unacceptable.

Besides - since when do you people care about human life? You guys celebrate like hell over the one million murders per year in the form of abortions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Another day another 100 people are dead because there was s gun in the house. Your one life saved hardly makes up for the 100 lost


According to the CDC, the total number of people killed with a firearm per day, under all circumstances, from 1999 to 2014, is ~85.
Thus, you must be wrong.

According to the VPC, the most anti-gun of all the anti-gun organizations out there, a firearm is used in self-defense >2x as often as one is use to kill, and >7.4x more often than to commit murder.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf


----------



## P@triot (Nov 1, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Another day another 100 people are dead because there was s gun in the house. Your one life saved hardly makes up for the 100 lost
> ...


Of course she's wrong. Like all Dumbocrats she just makes up stuff as she goes - including statistics.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 1, 2016)

P@triot said:


> View attachment 95439


That's the last thing anyone should be giving to their teenage daughter is a cell phone… LOL


----------



## P@triot (Nov 16, 2016)

An armed citizen saves the life of a law enforcement officer thanks to our 2nd Amendment right...

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/14/good-guy-with-a-gun-saves-deputy-from-being-beaten-to-death/


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 16, 2016)

Yeah hopefully "one of these 2nd amendment people can take care of" this trump problem America is having, as p.o.shit trump would say.


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 16, 2016)

P@triot said:


> An armed citizen saves the life of a law enforcement officer thanks to our 2nd Amendment right...
> 
> Good guy with a gun saves deputy from being beaten to death



Good news!  Of course it must really ANGER the liberals that we are able to defend ourselves and others using one of our rights.  They hate that.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 16, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Yeah hopefully "one of these 2nd amendment people can take care of" this trump problem America is having, as p.o.shit trump would say.



Been drinking or something?  Are you advocating for the assassination of an elected official?


----------



## P@triot (Nov 16, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Yeah hopefully "one of these 2nd amendment people can take care of" this trump problem America is having, as p.o.shit trump would say.


What "Trump problem"? He hasn't even taken office yet and he's already proven himself to be 10x's the leader of Barack Obama and Hitlery Clinton _combined_. The markets have gone through the roof over his election so the economy is already beginning to over come the Obama failure. Russia has already said it looks forward to peace with the U.S. (while they laughed in Obama's face when he tried to make nice with them) so Trump is already repairing our reputation on the world stage. The man hasn't even taken office yet IsaacNewton and he's already accomplished more than Barack Obama was able to in 8 years.

By the way...._really_ hope the Secret Service hauls your ass away for advocating the assassination of our president elect.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Yeah hopefully "one of these 2nd amendment people can take care of" this trump problem America is having, as p.o.shit trump would say.


You deliberate failure to understand the meaning behind Trump's statement is understandable, given your butt-hurt over the election.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 17, 2016)

Another _huge_ win for the 2nd Amendment and for law-abiding citizens...

Concealed carry customer shoots pizza joint intruders


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah hopefully "one of these 2nd amendment people can take care of" this trump problem America is having, as p.o.shit trump would say.
> ...



He is gone (mentally).  The Trump victory did a number on that poster.  Lol.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 17, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


It seems like the Trump victory did a number on a whole LOT of people!


----------



## Crixus (Nov 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah hopefully "one of these 2nd amendment people can take care of" this trump problem America is having, as p.o.shit trump would say.
> ...




Nope, they only get edgy if you say stuff like that about the half black president. You know, im feeling better about Trump. I still dont buy his shit just because he fired fatso though. When the Trump team tries to get their guys confirmed will be the real test for me. If Chucky boy and the democrats try to jam his nominations, then the republicans had better use their majority to ram them through like the democraps did. But im liking how its going and it makes me feel good about voting NOT HILLARY. Hell, its awesome to see Bambam speak. He knows his legacy will be shit all over. Meh.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 23, 2016)

Another woman and her child protected from harm thanks to the 2nd Amendment...

Ms. Haddix of Louisville, Kentucky (11/18/16)

Son convinces mother to buy a gun and learn to shoot. Alleged burglars obviously missed that memo. – TheBlaze


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Nov 23, 2016)

what about actual bears? can they still keep their AK=47's?


----------



## P@triot (Nov 24, 2016)

73-year old St. Louis man is alive and well thanks to the 2nd Amendment.

Homeowner, 73, fatally shoots two armed men


----------



## paulitician (Nov 24, 2016)

Yeah, we sure did dodge a 'bullet' with Trump winning. A UUGE loss for the Communist Gun Grabbers. Go Trump!


----------



## P@triot (Nov 28, 2016)




----------



## P@triot (Dec 1, 2016)

26 out of 26 women who deployed a weapon stopped the attack. That's 100% rate for progressives (who are incapable of basic math)...

Colorado Campus Carry: 12 Years, No Mass Shootings, No Crimes by Permit Holders - Breitbart


----------



## P@triot (Jan 5, 2017)

Thank God this woman still had the right to keep and bear arms here in the United States:

Reality TV star to intruders: ‘I will f***ing shoot'


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Thank God this woman still had the right to keep and bear arms here in the United States:
> 
> Reality TV star to intruders: ‘I will f***ing shoot'


I walk my dog in a park after work in the dark that is empty. It's great because I can let him off the leash. I tell women about the park and they all say "aren't you scared?"

If I were those women I would carry a concealed weapon. What a shame they don't feel free safe and comfortable to go walk by themselves outside in the dark. 

Remember that hot jogger who got killed jogging by herself? I wish she had a gun on her.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God this woman still had the right to keep and bear arms here in the United States:
> ...



I prefer it when I can go outside and not have to worry about having a gun, and know that I will be safe.


----------



## owebo (Jan 5, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


There are too many of you liberals here to do that anymore.....


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

owebo said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



And that's just a false sense of security. Even Mayberry and hazzard county had murders and rapes. 

Id love to live in a perfect world too but we don't.

And 99.9% of the time a woman could go out by herself for a long walk in the woods by herself. The chances of being attacked a small. It's not like rapists are lurking in every park. But women are too scared to do what I do. I've asked every woman with a dog if they would walk in the woods by themselves like I do and they say hell no. Ask any woman with a ccw and they'll say hell yes.


----------



## owebo (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Keep your free democrat rape whistle handy...hopefully there will be a good guy with a gun around to hear you.....


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

owebo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...


Even when I take a conservative position you're still a cock sucker.


----------



## owebo (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Was that a whistle?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jan 5, 2017)

owebo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...


i am still a believer that all bears have the right to bear arms


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The difference is that with normal precautions you'll be fine in some places, in other places you feel the fear. South Africa, now there's a place for fear, a murder rate that makes the US look weak, you simply don't go out at night in cities.


----------



## owebo (Jan 5, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...



See post #1590....


----------



## Rustic (Jan 5, 2017)

Buy more guns and ammo... more firearms equal more freedom and less crime… Fact


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Buy more guns and ammo... more firearms equal more freedom and less crime… Fact


I don't understand why good people in Chicago and Detroit don't all have ccw's.


----------



## owebo (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Buy more guns and ammo... more firearms equal more freedom and less crime… Fact
> ...


Democrats....


----------



## Rustic (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Buy more guns and ammo... more firearms equal more freedom and less crime… Fact
> ...


Gangbangers don't obey laws…


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

owebo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


In Michigan they don't deny detroiters or blacks from having a ccw


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Im talking about the good citizens of Chicago and detroit. You are armed to the teeth in Mayberry. If I were in a war zone ID have a ccw. You don't hear enough stories of how a ccw person stopped a crime. Does it happen or are you all just walking around with your dicks in your hand IN MAYBERRY! Lol

Dillan roof is a great example. What kind of people would allow one white sheep to slaughter so many good black sheep? Do you think blacks are armed in church now? I hope so.

If another dillan roof walked into a black church holsters and safeties should be unlocked.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's no one's business, especially the federal government what the average law-abiding American has for firearms.  Remember firearms do not kill people people kill people… That is learned in elementary school. Although progressives seem to have conveniently forgotten that fact.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 5, 2017)

Thank God she still has the right to keep and bear arms in this country...

Intruder forces woman into her bedroom—and meets her gun


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


I do too. And I do go outside without a gun but there could come a day when I run into more trouble than I can handle. If that day comes I'll wish I was packing so that's a false sense of security. I understand this. 

Women won't take the risk I do. That's a shame. They should feel safe like I do and a gun would certainly make her safe.

If that jogger had a gun she would have not been choked to death. I wish she had a gun.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Actually Republicans in Michigan voted down a law that would let any law abiding citizen carry a gun even without getting a permit. I was all for that because I don't think I should have to take a class. Do you?


----------



## Rustic (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 First of all conservatives and Republicans are as different as night and day, second of all the only permit anyone should need is the second amendment - of course. Now if you fuck up your right, absolutely right for firearm ownership by choosing to be a gangbanger or the like... tough shit.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Republicans are the conservative party. To conserve the status quo. Democrats are the progressive liberal party.

Republicans may not be conservative enough for you but you're just one guy.

Trust me Republicans are conservatives.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


I do see what you mean though. I feel the same about Democrats not being liberal enough.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



But then if you live in a society with guns you're far more likely to come across a situation that you can't deal with even with your gun than in a society without your gun.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 10, 2017)

Thank God this elderly man still has a right to keep and bear arms...

Two thieves try to steal truck from armed 73-year-old and instantly regret it


----------



## P@triot (Jan 10, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> But then if you live in a society with guns freedom of speech you're far more likely to come across a situation that you can't deal with even with your gun freedom of speech than in a society without your gun freedom of speech.


Do you realize how insanely idiotic your comment was now? That was one of the dumbest, most desperate comments I have _ever_ seen.

I can _always_ handle a situation that doesn't require a gun. But if disarmed, it will be impossible to handle a situation that does require a gun.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 10, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Thank God this elderly man still has a right to keep and bear arms...
> 
> Two thieves try to steal truck from armed 73-year-old and instantly regret it



What about this guy?

How did Fort Lauderdale suspect get gun back after FBI evaluation?


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 10, 2017)

*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*

God had nothing to do with it...Humans did...


----------



## P@triot (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God this elderly man still has a right to keep and bear arms...
> ...


What about him? Had progressives not created a "gun free" *victim* zone - most (if not all) of those people would be alive today.

Also - more people are killed every year by automobile than they are by firearms. We don't outlaw automobiles, do we? We don't hold law abiding citizens responsible for criminals in this country. If someone chooses to use a firearm for harm, the U.S. has no right to confiscate _my_ firearm over that.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 10, 2017)

P@triot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Who's talking about banning or outlawing firearms? I have 4 weapons.

If you're mentally challenged sorry no firearm


----------



## 12icer (Jan 10, 2017)

If the Clinton bitch had won it would be GONE if she could have another dimshitscum congress it would be history. To say otherwise will just once again prove you are lost in space.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 10, 2017)

[QUOTE="frigidweirdo, post: 16230117, member: 47831]
But then if you live in a society with guns you're far more likely to come across a situation that you can't deal with even with your gun than in a society without your gun.[/QUOTE]


Why? That is completely FALSE. The reason for problems in a society IS the people, and their attitude. The liberal indoctrinated think they have the right to assault, confront, and jump up in anyone's face they choose to intimidate. The social justice movement has spawned a genre of people who think they are given the right to riot, assault, steal, kill, intimidate extort, and violate their targets in any way they want with NO consequences because they have SPECIAL rights!! The break down of societal norms due to liberal BULLSHIT programs and education is what has spawned the "GUN" problem. I have first hand knowledge of that as being true. So don't even start to post it is BS. I know some very real victims of exactly what I just posted because I am in the HOOD a lot of my time. The people who live there KNOW why things are the way they are in their neighborhoods and if you ask anyone not the problem they will tell you if they trust you.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 10, 2017)

12icer said:


> Why? That is completely FALSE. The reason for problems in a society IS the people, and their attitude. The liberal indoctrinated think they have the right to assault, confront, and jump up in anyone's face they choose to intimidate. The social justice movement has spawned a genre of people who think they are given the right to riot, assault, steal, kill, intimidate extort, and violate their targets in any way they want with NO consequences because they have SPECIAL rights!! The break down of societal norms due to liberal BULLSHIT programs and education is what has spawned the "GUN" problem. I have first hand knowledge of that as being true. So don't even start to post it is BS. I know some very real victims of exactly what I just posted because I am in the HOOD a lot of my time. The people who live there KNOW why things are the way they are in their neighborhoods and if you ask anyone not the problem they will tell you if they trust you.



You say it's completely false, and then go talk about something else.

But then you're talking about "social norms". What, like keeping slaves, like having people use separate facilities etc? I mean the US has higher crime because the white people have kept the black people in ghettos and the like. In other first world countries these are far less likely, and where they do exist, for example in France with the Arabs, then social problems arise from this too.

So, the US didn't have a "GUN" problem before? At what point did these liberal programs (which you conveniently didn't tell me what they are) come into force and when did these programs start having an impact on crime? Yeah, I want to see the evidence.


----------



## ChrisL (Jan 10, 2017)

Guns don't make people murder, so obviously the problem is the people and NOT the guns.  Guns can act on their own.  They need a human to operate them.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Who's talking about banning or outlawing firearms?


Uh....95% of every Democrat who holds office.


----------



## Johann (Jan 11, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.



What's the point in having the Second amendment if the liberals interpret it into meaninglessness and restrict it to absurd levels?

Like Massachusetts and California. Owning an AR15 semi automatic rifle and 30 round mags are an American birthright.


----------



## owebo (Jan 11, 2017)

Johann said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...


I would go further to say automatic.....we need to eliminate liberal oppression of our rights....


----------



## P@triot (Jan 11, 2017)

owebo said:


> Johann said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Absolutely - we have a constitutional *right* to _fully_ automatic weapons. Anybody who says otherwise is either a liar or an uninformed idiot.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Jan 11, 2017)

*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

Amen and pass the ammunition...*


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2017)

This law enforcement officer and his department are thanking God today for the average citizen's *right* to keep and bear arms...

Passing motorist shoots, kills gunman who ambushed Arizona trooper


----------



## P@triot (Jan 15, 2017)

Just think - if progressives weren't science deniers, biology deniers, reality deniers, and data deniers - we could actually end mass shootings...

Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows


----------



## Ridgerunner (Jan 15, 2017)




----------



## P@triot (Jan 15, 2017)

Ridgerunner said:


> View attachment 106888


----------



## skye (Jan 15, 2017)

yes and  bear all sort of arms
not only guns etc,,,,

but missiles and heavy artillery too... I could say more...

you know


----------



## P@triot (Jan 15, 2017)

Ridgerunner said:


> View attachment 106888


Yet another progressive *false* *narrative* _completely_ obliterated.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Jan 15, 2017)

skye said:


> yes and bear all sort of arms
> not only guns etc,,,,
> 
> but missiles and heavy artillery too... I could say more...
> ...



And I could listen to you all night...


----------



## P@triot (Jan 22, 2017)

Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms - a LOT of lives were saved today because of it...

San Antonio shopping mall shooting leaves 1 dead, 6 injured; alleged perp shot by armed civilian


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## P@triot (Jan 24, 2017)




----------



## P@triot (Feb 20, 2017)

Another day - another life saved because of our *right* to keep and bear arms...

Armed robber pays dearly after store clerk pulls own his gun


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> > Why? That is completely FALSE. The reason for problems in a society IS the people, and their attitude. The liberal indoctrinated think they have the right to assault, confront, and jump up in anyone's face they choose to intimidate. The social justice movement has spawned a genre of people who think they are given the right to riot, assault, steal, kill, intimidate extort, and violate their targets in any way they want with NO consequences because they have SPECIAL rights!! The break down of societal norms due to liberal BULLSHIT programs and education is what has spawned the "GUN" problem. I have first hand knowledge of that as being true. So don't even start to post it is BS. I know some very real victims of exactly what I just posted because I am in the HOOD a lot of my time. The people who live there KNOW why things are the way they are in their neighborhoods and if you ask anyone not the problem they will tell you if they trust you.
> ...




Under the racist democrat lyndon johnson...his Great Society used government welfare programs to remove fathers from the homes of minority families...starting a multi generational problem of single teenage girls raising children with no adult men in their lives to teach their male children how to become men.....and now we are seeing the fruition of this with the gun murder rate in democrat controlled inner cities....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 20, 2017)

Remember, I also have a right to bear arms and stand my ground!


----------



## Little-Acorn (Feb 20, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Remember, I also have a right to bear arms and stand my ground!


Thank a conservative.

Their efforts to protect Americans' right to keep and bear arms, benefits ALL Americans.

Even liberal snowflakes who wouldn't give them the time of day, such as yourself.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 21, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Remember, I also have a right to bear arms and stand my ground!


Do any of us look like we care? All the thugs are on _your_ side of the aisle, snowflake. None of us conservatives are concerned about getting shot by someone "standing their ground" because conservatives never place people in a position where they need to "stand their ground".


----------



## P@triot (Feb 21, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Remember, I also have a right to bear arms and stand my ground!


Sadly - you also have the right to be an uneducated idiot. The right you revel in exercising the most.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 24, 2017)

The winning continues. Liberty wins. The U.S. Constitution wins. The American people win.

Wyoming House passes bill that does away with gun-free zones in schools


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2017)

While the witness told KNTV he wanted to intervene, he was outnumbered and said he felt “*helpless*,” instead, opting to videotape the incident so the culprits might be caught.

Yeah...that's what happens with you ignorant sheeple who take zero responsibility for your own security. You _make_ yourselves helpless. You create victims. Idiot.

Highway bikers caught on video pummeling driver they trapped


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2017)

And to think that left-wing hatriots want to strip us of our *right* to keep and bear arms...

Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker


----------



## P@triot (Apr 2, 2017)

Among some of the dumbest comments ever made...


> According to KTUL-TV, Leroy Schumacher, grandfather of 17-year-old Jacob Redfearn, believes the death of Redfearn was unjustified because the homeowner’s AR15 gave him an unfair advantage over the three burglars.
> 
> “Brass knuckles against an AR-15? C’mon” Schumacher said.


Oh...I'm sorry Leroy. Are you under the impression that I'm looking for a "fair" fight when forced to defend my home?!? Is THREE people - with or without brass knuckles  - against an individual homeowner a "fair" fight in your mind?!?


> The homeowner who pulled the trigger has not been charged with any crimes because police say he acted in self-defense.
> 
> “There’s got to be a limit to that law, I mean he shot all three of them — there was no need for that,” he told KTUL.


Why should there be a "limit" to defending myself, my family, and my home from animals who have invaded it just because you and your children can't raise your grandchildren _properly_? Why should I have to hesitate as I choose between losing my life to home invaders or losing my life to prison because you're a _horrible_ parent?

Grandfather of Oklahoma teen killed by homeowner in burglary says AR15 made for ‘unfair’ fight


----------



## P@triot (Apr 4, 2017)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...

Vet battles pair of home invaders. Then his son grabs a gun.


----------



## Rustic (Apr 4, 2017)

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 4, 2017)

SuperDemocrat said:


> The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?


like you could afford a tank


----------



## Rustic (Apr 4, 2017)

It's funny, progressives think that Owning/buying a firearm makes one a criminal... lol


----------



## P@triot (Apr 11, 2017)

candycorn said:


> We’ll see what the Supreme Court says after Hillary gets 400 EVs….  tick tock tick tock tick tock


Well...you were 50% correct. We _will_ see what the Supreme Court has to say. But thank God that Hitlery didn't get anywhere near 270 votes (much less 400). It is infinitely more likely now that the U.S. Constitution will be upheld and *liberty* will be preserved.

Neil Gorsuch to Participate in Deciding SCOTUS Gun Rights Hearing


----------



## Ridgerunner (Apr 11, 2017)

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > We’ll see what the Supreme Court says after Hillary gets 400 EVs….  tick tock tick tock tick tock
> ...



Again can I get a PTL and pass the ammunition...


----------



## P@triot (Apr 13, 2017)

Another life saved because of our constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms...

Concealed-carrying man sees knife attack, reacts heroically


----------



## P@triot (Apr 13, 2017)

Ridgerunner said:


> Again can I get a PTL and pass the ammunition...


Why _yes_....yes you can!


----------



## P@triot (May 4, 2017)

Yet another armed citizen was able to save themselves and their family thanks to our *right* to keep and bear arms...

Home invaders force family on floor—but Dad turns the tables


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 4, 2017)

Can I get an Amen...


----------



## P@triot (May 16, 2017)

Another life protected thanks to our *right* to keep and bear arms...

Gun owner turns tables on gas station robber, won’t face charges


----------



## P@triot (May 16, 2017)

candycorn said:


> The second amendment says “well regulated militia”.  IF you’re not in one, sorry, no gun for you.


Damn CC....I had no idea that even the progressive shit-hole state of Illinois had joined the crowd and legalized concealed carry. Now all 50 states rightfully recognize our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


> In 2013, Illinois became the 50th and final state to implement a firearm concealed carry law after state lawmakers voted to override the governor’s veto on the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Residents of Illinois may carry a concealed weapon after obtaining an Illinois concealed carry license.


So much for your false narrative about being a member of a "militia" as a requirement for our basic constitutional rights!

Gun owner turns tables on gas station robber, won’t face charges


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)




----------



## candycorn (May 16, 2017)

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Blast from the past. 

Nobody has ever explained why a few words in the amendment are ignored and the rest are gospel! 

That was the case last year.
That will be the case this year
Will be the case going forward


----------



## P@triot (May 16, 2017)

candycorn said:


> Nobody has ever explained why a few words in the amendment are ignored and the rest are gospel!


Well how can one explain something that has *never* happened? Nobody has ever ignored words in the U.S. Constitution (other than progressives).

As I've explained to you before - your favorite part (the "well regulated militia") is the _why_. It is what is known as in legalese the Prefatory Clause. The why is the reason. The reason is that firearms are "necessary to the security of a *free* state". But it is not the what.

The _what_ - or the Operative Clause in legalese - is "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people - all people. Not just members of a militia.

See? So simple, only a progressive could be confused by it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2017)

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



it's you who are selective

the right of the people ( not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

the people are already all considered to be members of the militia


----------



## candycorn (May 17, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Really…without any training as a unit, commonality of terms, uniforms, tactical or strategic training, command structure.  

Not sure how any adult could make such a statement.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 17, 2017)

Here is the liberal training as a unit and command structure you speak of counselor...



candycorn said:


> Really…without any training as a unit, commonality of terms, uniforms, tactical or strategic training, command structure.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2017)

candycorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



it doesn't take much to research the subject

all men at the time were considered to be the militia

and the second clearly says the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

the people hold the right because the people are the militia


----------



## P@triot (May 17, 2017)

Ridgerunner said:


> Here is the liberal training as a unit and command structure you speak of counselor...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holy shit... 

The poster child for the left. Uneducated. Illiterate. And still given a high profile, high paying job because of the color of his skin.

And now I will rephrase that so that the left can understand it:


> The child poster of for the left. Uneducated. Illiterate. And still given a hi profiler, hi paying job becauses of his skin the color of his skin color.


----------



## P@triot (May 17, 2017)

candycorn said:


> Not sure how any adult could make such a statement.


That's ok....I'm not sure how any adult could reject the U.S. Constitution and embrace fascism. What is it exactly about liberty that bothers you so much? I'm not being sarcastic - I'm asking a serious question.

Everyone on the left has this bizarre fear that if all of society isn't forced to row in the same direction at the barrel of a gun, something awful is going to happen. What is that "awful" thing?


----------



## P@triot (May 17, 2017)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms! It's already beginning to prevent crime in Chicago...

Carjackers target man with concealed-carry license. Oops.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 17, 2017)

I am going to buy more ammo as you fuckers want to take away my rights to be who I wish to be. Fascist bastards will have a small war on their hands.


----------



## P@triot (May 17, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I am going to buy more ammo as you fuckers want to take away my rights to be who I wish to be. Fascist bastards will have a small war on their hands.


A "small war"? From _you_?


----------



## P@triot (May 17, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I am going to buy more ammo as you fuckers want to *take away my rights to be who I wish to be*. Fascist bastards will have a small war on their hands.


So is this why you're so angry all the time? You're a transgender struggling with your identity? I'm not making fun of you - I'm just asking. You're always pissed off and that would explain it.

By the way - the left aren't trying to take away your right to be transgender. That's one of the few rights those fascists aren't trying to take away. And of course - the right would never strip you of your right to be who you want to be. We won't allow you to invade the restroom of women of course - but you can still put a dress and lipstick on.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 17, 2017)

mattie, mattie, mattie that operation really worked...


----------



## P@triot (May 18, 2017)




----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2017)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms....

Armed home intruder beats on dad — but son also has a gun


----------



## Ridgerunner (Jun 2, 2017)

Friends of a friend having a good old time...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 8, 2017)

There is nothing funnier than stupid people suffering the consequences of their own stupidity... 

After London Attack, British Gun Activists Call For Right To Bear Arms


----------



## P@triot (Jun 16, 2017)

Just think of how different this outcome would have been had Dumbocrats been allowed to disarm the American people as they desire.

Total Badass Holds Two Escaped Killers At Gunpoint Until Cops Arrive


----------



## P@triot (Jun 22, 2017)

While fascism continues to expand around the world, we continue to see a push back to liberty here in the U.S.


> Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) who will introduce a bill that goes the opposite way to expand gun rights. “My *bill would make the District of Columbia honor your concealed carry permit from any state* — and this is for anybody, not just members of Congress — who comes and visits Washington, D.C.,” Massie said.


I've needed this in the past. Let's hope the Republican Congress gets this signed into law ASAP.

New Bill Recognizes Out-of-State Concealed Carry Permits in DC—for Lawmakers AND Citizens


----------



## P@triot (Jul 5, 2017)




----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2017)

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms. The fascists want a helpless citizenry that can be made into victims. Thank God for our founders, their foresight, the U.S. Constitution, and the conservatives who continue to protect and defend our rights every day.

Homeowner turns tables on armed intruders, shoots them dead


----------



## bitter clinging swiftie (Jul 20, 2017)

amen, and thank god our rights aren't subject to totalitarian whims


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2017)

Now if the left was rational and consistent - they would call for hammers to be outlawed and all hammers be confiscated.

And...if these ladies had been armed per their constitutional right, they would be alive and well today.

3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home


----------



## P@triot (Aug 24, 2017)

Thank God our founders recognized our right to keep and bear arms...

Teen sticks gun in back of 61-year-old man in robbery attempt. But the kid picked the wrong victim.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2017)

So much for the liberal lie that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings...

Two good guys with guns stop shooting spree that left auto shop worker dead and another paralyzed


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 5, 2017)

P@triot said:


> So much for the liberal lie that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings...
> 
> Two good guys with guns stop shooting spree that left auto shop worker dead and another paralyzed



a.   The premise is false, no liberal lie as claimed exists;  
b.   One data point and this moron ^^^ comes to a conclusion that guns in the hands of more and more people is good, in spite of the fact that there are many more data points to dispute this claim.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 5, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the liberal lie that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings...
> ...


Are you totally incapable of adult discussion - or does the childish name calling simply give you some kind of vicarious thrill?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 5, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the liberal lie that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings...
> ...




No....you have no data points that dispute this.....as we have posted over and over, armed Americans use their guns to stop violent criminal attacks, including mass public shooters 1,500,000 times a year, according to bill clinton's Department of Justice study on gun violence....also, as more Americans bought and also carried guns...our gun crime rate went down, not up....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And now.....having watched actual witnesses talk about the shootings in Aurora, and Orlando...it is obvious that if those sites had not been gun free zones, more lives would have been saved and the shooters stopped earlier than they were....

You have nothing.....none of the facts, the truth or reality back up what you believe...not one single thing...


----------



## P@triot (Dec 5, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the liberal lie that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings...
> ...


Guy Catcher actually _lies_ about his lies... 

Is it True Armed Civilians Have Never Stopped a Mass Shooting?

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 5, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states | Stanford News


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 5, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



There was an armed off duty cop doing security in Orlando.  Didn't matter, he was too outgunned.  Mass killing guns need to be illegal.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 5, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Too many guns.


Too many people with zero respect for the U.S. Constitution. My 2nd Amendment rights trump your _opinions_.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 5, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control.


You should really consider going to live in one of those other “civilized” countries that you so admire. Fidel Castro implemented strict gun control. His brother Raul would _love_ to have you!


----------



## P@triot (Dec 5, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> There was an armed off duty cop doing security in Orlando.  Didn't matter, he was too outgunned.  Mass killing guns need to be illegal.


Funny...if he was “outgunned” then why aren’t you advocating for that officer to be provided with fully automatic “mass killing guns” so that he’s *not* “outgunned”.

Do you know why? Because gun *control* isn’t about safety. It’s about *control*.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > There was an armed off duty cop doing security in Orlando.  Didn't matter, he was too outgunned.  Mass killing guns need to be illegal.
> ...



Because we already have an arms race.  Why make it worse?  We want less guns, not more. More guns is why we have so much death including mass shootings, cop shootings, accidental shootings, toddler shootings...   these are problems solved with gun control.

We are in such a sad state our police are getting ptsd.
Pulse hero with PTSD to be let go from police force


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Too many guns.
> ...



The right to life is really being trampled.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

Just about every week we lose a cop to a shooting.  Very rare when there is strong gun control.
Arrest warrant issued in connection with shooting death of San Marcos police officer


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Too many guns.
> ...



The Supreme Court agrees the 2nd has limits.

Supreme Court rejects 2 gun rights appeals


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> The Supreme Court agrees the 2nd has limits.


The supreme court agrees that the legislature can place limits on gun rights.

But, we're going to remove those limits.  We're going to repeal all gun laws all the way back to the beginning.  Open carry of full-auto machine guns will be the norm.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme Court agrees the 2nd has limits.
> ...



You like death that much eh?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> You like death that much eh?




That's like saying that I like death for owning a car.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > You like death that much eh?
> ...



No it isn't obviously.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> No it isn't obviously.




Yeah it is.  You just have an unreasonable emotional response to guns.  Shift it to another tool or object.


This car is okay:





because it's safe and doesn't go too fast.

But, THIS car:




well, you love death.  It goes WAY too fast.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > No it isn't obviously.
> ...




Nothing unreasonable.  The death is quite clear, just look at Vegas.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




He ran away taking the only gun with him.....I saw the documentary on the Orlando shooting, twit......the shooter could have been killed by armed citizens all throughout the attack....this is from witness statements....the guy even washed and dried his hands in a room full of unarmed people.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




58 people were murdered by a man with a rifle.  In Nice, France, a man used a rental truck to murder 86 in 5 minutes.

Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminals including against mass public shooters....even in Texas...the NRA instructor used his personal AR-15 civilian rifle to stop the killer, saving at a minimum 26 people.....likely even more...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yeah.....I think this one guy was in the documentary....he wasn't the only police officer or paramedic at the shooting, twit.  And again, from that documentary we learn that had it not been a gun free zone, more lives would have been saved...from actual witness testimony.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Just about every week we lose a cop to a shooting.  Very rare when there is strong gun control.
> Arrest warrant issued in connection with shooting death of San Marcos police officer




I know....we have to make it against the law to murder police officers....


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



And in countries with strong gun control mass killings are rare.  Here they happen regularly.  And every year we seem to have a new worst.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Yes the bill Clinton crime bill and gun control really helped.  Now with lots of concealed carry violent crime is increasing.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Just about every week we lose a cop to a shooting.  Very rare when there is strong gun control.
> ...



We need gun control.  With strong gun control police murders are rare.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




That has nothing to do with their gun laws....Britain had one every 10 years and only avoided it so far because the one 19 year old last year posted about his shooting on facebook, and another changed his mind and called the police on himself from the school.....

And France.....their muslim population is doing the mass public shootings that regular Frenchmen won't do...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No.....the Ferguson effect is increasing crime in democrat cities that have attacked their police....


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 6, 2017)

Thank 'God' humans were created with the intellectual capacities to invent and enforce 'rights'.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Mass killings are rare with strong gun control.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Caused by too many guns.  Police rarely shoot people when there is strong gun control.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No...they aren't....Europe didn't have a lot of mass shootings before they took guns away......and, of course, they did murder 12 million people in gas chambers....unarmed people....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Tell that to the victims in Mexico, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia......


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Yes Europe has lower ownership and mass killings are rare.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Yes Europe has lower ownership and mass killings are rare.


See, but none of that shit matters, because we're getting more guns no matter what.  We don't give a rat fuck about statistics that are heavily skewed for suicides and gang violence.  We don't care.  

More guns, not less.  Sorry if you love Europe more.  They will probably let you live there.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 6, 2017)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Europe has lower ownership and mass killings are rare.
> ...



You must be one of those Russians trying to ruin our country.  No American could be that dumb.

After mass shootings, retired military commanders urge Congress to address 'gun violence crisis'


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yes.....the military leaders of nazi Germany, socialist Russia, cambodia, china, cuba....all agree with those military commanders....it is soooooo much harder to fill mass graves if the victims can shoot back...


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Most mass shootings happen at night - we should outlaw darkness! What will it cost to light the world?

Makes just as much sense as what you're saying .... 

You are conflating one fact with another - and PRESUMING there is a connection.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Because we already have an arms race.  Why make it worse?


For the same reason the U.S., the former U.S.S.R., and other nations built up their nuclear arsenals. M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction). History has _proven_ that weakness invites aggression. How many World Wars have we had since the beginning of the nuclear arms race? Answer: *0*


----------



## P@triot (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> We want less guns, not more.


Who is this “we” stuff? The U.S. has spoken. We want more guns. Only the fascists such as yourself want less.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Only by those who *fail* to take personal responsibility...


----------



## P@triot (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Just about every week we lose a cop to a shooting.  Very rare when there is strong gun control.
> Arrest warrant issued in connection with shooting death of San Marcos police officer


Really?!? Apparently you haven’t been watching England very closely. They’ve had law enforcement officers beheaded in the streets by muslims. They’ve had law enforcement officers run down by vehicles. And they’ve had law enforcement officers running like pussies during shootings because they were unarmed.

If that’s the world you want to live in - the failed progressive states are waiting for you. But your idiotic dream of a disarmed nation ain’t happening here in the U.S., sparky.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Thank God the Supreme Court isn’t empowered to make law from the bench - nor are they empowered to decide what the U.S. Constitution says.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> You must be one of those Russians trying to ruin our country. No American could be that dumb.


Says the guy trying to snatch up all our guns.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 6, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Yes Europe has lower ownership and mass killings are rare.


Meanwhile, muslims are raping women at alarming rates in Europe. I’m always suspicious of a person who wants to disarm women. Rational people don’t want women to become victims. Only fellow rapists do...


----------



## MikeK (Dec 6, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Exactly. Our founders didn't say the right to bear "muskets". Or the right to bear "handguns". They said the right to bear _arms_. There are no limits on the type of weapons we can have. Of it's ok for the government to have them, and the government answers to the people, then it's sure as hell of for the people to have them.


You've asked a good question, one which has occurred to many including myself.  I do recall some time ago reading a Supreme Court justice's response to that question, which held that in such highly controversial Constitutional issues "the matter of _Original Intent_ is left to hold sway."  So, presuming the authors of the Second Amendment to be rational, sensible men, and supposing they were able to anticipate technological developments in the field of weaponry, it may also be presumed that such wise and thoughtful men would not approve of any ordinary citizen having unrestrained access to _weapons of mass destruction._ 

So my guess is the presumed "original intent" of the Founders is that ordinary citizens should be permitted to _keep and bear_ the standard individual's weaponry of that era, which were standard shoulder and hand firearms, swords and daggers.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



So you insult our military and think they will turn on the people?  That is just sad.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Europe has lower ownership and mass killings are rare.
> ...



Really?  Share a link to support that.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > You must be one of those Russians trying to ruin our country. No American could be that dumb.
> ...



A real American would want to stop all the death.  Protect the children.  You just want more death.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



How does that help all the children shot and killed each year?  All the cops shot each year?  All the women shot when their relationship goes bad?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > We want less guns, not more.
> ...



Nothing fascist about wanting fewer dead cops and lower crime rates.  Why do you want so many armed criminals?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Mass shootings happen often when there are lots of guns.  They are rare when there is strong gun control.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states | Stanford News


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
> Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
> US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
> Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
> ...


Yeah, no.  Don't care.  Everyone should carry a machine gun at all times.  That ends the  violence REAL fast.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> So you insult our military and think they will turn on the people?  That is just sad.


So, you don't think our military can be turned against the people?  Do a Google search on keyword, *Hooverville.*


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


A real American cherishes his freedoms, defends his rights, and secures his, and his family's, safety and security.

A real American recognizes that the average citizen is capable of intelligent and considered decision making.

A real American recognizes that there will be those who attempt to subvert his freedoms, and take his rights away, but knows that, in the end, the quality, intelligence, and morality of other American citizens will hold sway.

A real American does not believe in punishing the many for the sins of the few.

A real American recognizes, defends, and exercises his right to self determination and self protection.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...





Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


I was going to rant and rave about how wrong you are ---- but I decided not to.

Instead, I will only say that you are trying to back into a plausible justification for an untenable position where none exists. Your connectivity of the prevalence of guns to the frequency of mass shootings can't be justified. Yes, there are more guns - yes, there are more mass shootings --- but the number of guns does not increase the number of mass shootings. There is no causal factor proven. There is a correlation, yes - but not a cause. If that were so, eliminating X guns would mean there will be a Y decrease in mass shootings. 

There are more people --- there are more mass shootings. Are you proposing that we should limit the number of people in order to prevent more mass shootings? There are more cars -- there are more mass shootings. Are you proposing that we should limit the number of cars in order to prevent more mass shootings? There are more apartments --- there are more mass shootings. Are you proposing we should limit the number of apartments in order to prevent more mass shootings??

Mass shootings are NOT a result of guns - "guns" is merely the methodology. Mass shootings ARE a direct result of a societal decrease in concern for others. Mass shootings ARE a direct result of a perception of a lack of ultimate reckoning for their actions. Mass shootings ARE - and I know this will make you uncomfortable - a direct result of a transition of our society from a Christian morality to a secular morality. As our concern for our fellow man has withered, we are more willing to self-justify harm to our fellow man as a viable solution to our confrontations. As man has increasingly come to believe that he is the ultimate authority - which has to be the epitome of arrogance - we have increased our capacity to rationalize our extreme actions. 

It is nonsensical to believe that strict gun control will have a positive effect. The proof of the fallacy of this simplistic misinterpretation of the reality is no further than Chicago of Washington DC. Draconian gun control laws have had no effect on the murder rates in these cities - in fact, they can be considered as direct contributors to the death rate.

Guns are NOT the problem - the person pulling the trigger is the problem. As long as you allow yourself to be distracted from addressing the root of the problem, the longer, and the larger, the problem will become. Mass shootings is the symptom - not the disease. You don' kill a tree by cutting off the limbs.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > So you insult our military and think they will turn on the people?  That is just sad.
> ...



Nope.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



A real American wants to save the lives of our children.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



It isn't a coincidence we have the most guns and the most mass killings, cop killings, school shootings, accidental shootings, cops killing the most people, toddler shootings...  It is frankly quite silly to think it is a coincidence.  These are things that are rare with strong gun control.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Our children keep dying when they don't have to.  Be a hero and fight for gun control.
Two students killed in New Mexico high school shooting


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Hm, lets look at some of those countries. Did you know that in a few of those civilized countries you mention peeps can be sentenced to a whipping? Did you also know that the cops, you know, the guys with guns can beat a confession out of a suspect? Did you also know that in about all of them evidance can be gathered on a suspect because investigators feel the need to survail them? So if you feel safer with that type stuff, why not move to Mexico or something? And stop posting the same shit. Switch it up some.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



None of those things are true in many of the most safe civilized countries.  Not really clear which ones you reference actually.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)




----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Really? They do it just like us huh? You don’t know what you speak of. Going by what you say one understands why stupid spoild kids get jammed up for shoplifting in China.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



Denmark?  Germany?  Japan?


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Oh, and I reference all the countries that aren’t called America. Your stupid rants are just that. Stupid rants. I. My closet sits three AR15’s as well as many other guns. My children handle them on the regular as do other folks and it will continue to be that way. Gohead and deal with that how you must.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...


And the children continue to die.
Guns are now the third leading cause of death for U.S. children


----------



## Vandalshandle (Dec 7, 2017)

I assume that this woman used an AR-16 with a 100 ammo drum, and bump stock. That is so necessary for proper self defense.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...


Police: MD Child Hurt After Neighbor Shot Him Accidentally


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Dunno. Ask the lady and her boyfriend who this article is about.


Migrant accused of rape in Germany calls victim prostitute | Daily Mail Online


*Asylum seeker accused of raping a German woman in front of her boyfriend in terrifying knife-point attack calls her a ‘prostitute’ in furious courtroom outburst*


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




So ?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

God does not want this.
Ohio dad charged after 3-year-old finds gun, fatally shoots self


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yes, you children continue to lie.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



So that leads to unrest and an increase in violent crime.  You don't care about crime?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...


Can't deal with the facts?


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> God does not want this.
> Ohio dad charged after 3-year-old finds gun, fatally shoots self




You obviously get off on it. Your them has trended to children. That supposed to make you more right? More kids are killed by cell phones and cars. Keep flailing mother Teresa.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Don’t have to worry about it. I am armed and I live in a really good neighborhood.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > God does not want this.
> ...



There is a cure for these deaths.  They are very rare with strong gun control.  We could save lives, you just choose not to.


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And what’s the punishment for murder in Japan?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



And very selfish, what a hero.


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...





Nope. Not really. To many facts say different.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...


What is the punishment in Germany?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



Fact is these problems are very rare with strong gun control.  You choose to believe lies.


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yup. My famil my property my problem. Move to Japan if you feel so much safer. Just don’t let safety be conflated with freedom. You advocate giving up safety for freedom. That’s just stupid.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



I advocate saving lives of children, cops, wives...  The right to life is being trampled.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)




----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Really? No haji fuck has raped any of my kids. Burgler types don’t hit this area to much. Is it because of the police? Sure, but it’s mostly because folks here, even the poor ones like me are known to be armed. Your beloved Michael Brown types know this is a good area to get shot stealing shit so they stick to their own kind as they are typically NOT armed.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

MikeK said:


> So my guess is the presumed "original intent" of the Founders is that ordinary citizens should be permitted to _keep and bear_ the standard individual's weaponry of that era, which were standard shoulder and hand firearms, swords and daggers.


Well that’s not a very good guess. They would have written “standard weaponry of today” _or_ “muskets”. They specifically said *arms* for a reason. The government answers to the people. If the subordinate can have a weapon, the superior sure as hell can.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 7, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



All you have done is give criminals a good reason to be armed.  You insure more death.  We have the most concealed carry every now and look what happened:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




You insure more child rape. We how stupid what you said is? Go sniff more glue and mellow out fag. Your getting pissed.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


>


I’m telling you - you should really move to Cuba. I think you would be _really_ happy.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


I did not speak of coincidence .... I spoke of correlation and causation. Quit trying to change the discussion to fit your preconceived mission.

Here is your task ..... there is an increase in guns, and an increase in mass shootings. Explain the causation.

Then ... there is an increase in people, and an increase in mass shootings. Explain the causation.

Somehow, you seem to believe that just the sight of a gun causes people to go crazy and kill hundreds. Somehow, you seem to believe that, if the gun weren't there - in all its malevolent glory - the person would not harbor ill will and act on it.

Quit fooling yourself ---- address the cause.


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




Probubly would feel safer.... maybe.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Really. Do you intentionally avoid the news or are you too busy doing something else to pay attention?

Germany's Migrant Rape Crisis: January 2017

Why are sexual assaults in Bavaria on the rise? | Germany | DW | 20.09.2017

German crime statistics reveal steep rise in violent and political crimes | News | DW | 24.04.2017

Did you catch that? A _steep_ rise in *violent* crime. Thank goodness for a disarmed and helpless German populace, uh?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> A real American would want to stop all the death.  Protect the children.  You just want more death.


A *real* American knows that *nothing* protects people like being armed. Thanks for playing, sparky.


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




He won’t explain the causation because the causation don’t back his assertion. It can appear to, but it really doesn’t. No one ever brings up the fact that we have a much bigger population then we did in the 50’s 60’s and seventies. Then the huge lack of respect for any type of authority be it the police or politition. This two things are part of the causation for sure, but it’s not as sexy as a dead child blown to bits in a kindergarten class. These things have stopped being outrageous from having been used as a political talking point.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Again...if those women would have armed themselves...they wouldn’t have become victims “when their relationship went bad”. If those law enforcement officers had been more aware, taken their training more seriously, and worked in tandem, most of them would still be alive.

The fact is - there are way more female victims in Germany than there are here in the U.S. So much for your propaganda!


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop criminals...often capturing them...that is stopping the actual gun criminals who use guns to kill children and police officers....and women need guns to stop their violent, likely democrat, exes .....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Then you want more good Americans carrying guns....as more good Americans carry guns, our crime rates go down...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Criminals are already armed, sparky. The question is then - why do you want law abiding citizens disarmed and ripe to be victims? Only criminals wants gun control. That creates easier targets and more victims for them.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


>


Perhaps you can explain why there are more deaths-per-gun in 45 countries than in the US. (Oh, by the way, our death-per-gun rate is lower than Japan, Singapore, Israel, Poland, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, and Belgium, among others).

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Kinda shoots your whole argument in the ass, don't it?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> A real American wants to save the lives of our children.


And real criminals/predators desperately want an unarmed population. That says a lot about you, uh chief?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




It is a coincidence since we don't even rank in the top 100 countries for murder, but we are #1 for gun ownership......you have no idea what you are talking about.......and as we showed you before, those toddlers who are shot.....are in homes owned by criminals, drug addicts and alcoholics and people who are already prohibited from owning and buying guns........


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...





Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


What an incredibly dumb argument ..... if you weren't armed, those who wish to inflict ill upon you won't use them either!!!

Are you serious???? PLEASE tell me you didn't mean that --- it WAS a joke, right????


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Boom! And SP delivers a knockout blow to Brain(less)!


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Our children keep dying when they don't have to.  Be a hero and fight for gun control.
> Two students killed in New Mexico high school shooting




A gun free zone...like almost every single mass shooting in this country....good people disarmed and made helpless by people like you.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


>




Yeah...."Gun related Deaths" which means they use suicides to get their number for the U.S.....which is a lie...since many of those other countries have higher suicide rates than we do.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Gun crime is going up in the U.K. and their police want to carry guns now...because the criminals have guns.  Deaths of police in the U.K. are going to go up as the U.K. imports foreign drug gangs to do the killing that regular British citizens won't do....


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> It isn't a coincidence we have the most guns and the most mass killings, cop killings, school shootings, accidental shootings, cops killing the most people, toddler shootings...  It is frankly quite silly to think it is a coincidence.  *These are things that are rare with strong gun control*.


Yeah...thank God for “strong gun control”. It saved all of those children in China from unimaginable horrors. Oh wait...that’s right...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yeah...that is a shit link......they don't tell you the age range of the "Children" since the majority of "Child" deaths are 16-19 year old gang bangers shooting each other...but thanks for lying....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> God does not want this.
> Ohio dad charged after 3-year-old finds gun, fatally shoots self




Moron...you really need to read your links...the other infant...died from a methadone and cocaine overdose.......what a twit....

Steven M. Wallen, 26, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and child endangering for the Sept. 10 accidental shooting death of a 3-year-old son involving a gun left unsecured at a house in the 3000 block of Wade Road in Madison Township.

*Nina L. Straty, 24, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and child endangering for the April 27 drug-overdose death of her less than one-month-old infant daughter, Loucia Kinsell.*

Both indictments were issued Tuesday.

Wallen, who is listed at a Pickerington address in court records, was in the Wade Road home with his twin sons when the shooting occurred, township police reported. Police initially said that the victim shot himself with a gun he found while the father was sleeping. Prosecutor Ron O’Brien said Wednesday that the shooting occurred after both boys found the gun.

*In Straty’s case, an autopsy by the Franklin County Coroner’s Office determined that her newborn daughter’s death resulted from “acute intoxication by methadone and cocaine,” *O’Brien said. The incident occurred at Straty’s home in the 400 block of Wyandotte Avenue in the University District.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Tell that to the 110 other countries with extreme gun control that have higher gun murder rates than we do......and you twits had better be ready....your anti gun paradises are all experiencing increased gun crime as their social welfare systems are creating more and more violent young men, and importing even more violent young men from 3rd world countries.


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't a coincidence we have the most guns and the most mass killings, cop killings, school shootings, accidental shootings, cops killing the most people, toddler shootings...  It is frankly quite silly to think it is a coincidence.  *These are things that are rare with strong gun control*.
> ...





Wanna see something worse? Since brain likes Germany so much maybe he knows about The cologne school massacre? Not likely. And he wouldn’t sai if he did .


----------



## P@triot (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> It isn't a coincidence we have the most guns and the most mass killings, cop killings, school shootings, accidental shootings, cops killing the most people, toddler shootings...  It is frankly quite silly to think it is a coincidence.  *These are things that are rare with strong gun control*.


Yeah...thank goodness for that “strong gun control” in China. It spared so many children. I mean - just think - they could have been shot. But thanks to the same “strong gun control” that you advocate for, those children only had to endure being bludgeoned to death by claw hammers or stabbed over and over and over until they passed out from blood loss and agony.


> School attacks in China (2010–12) A series of uncoordinated *mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks* in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured.


If only they were here, I’m sure they would thank you Brain(less). 

School attacks in China (2010–12) - Wikipedia


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


>




Yeah...nice photo...but of course, it doesn't tell the actual truth...

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries

Why Turkey and Chile and Bulgaria? Well, those countries are OECD members, and many who use the "developed country" moniker often use the OECD members countries as a _de facto_ list of the "true" developed countries. Of course, membership in the OECD is highly political and hardly based on any objective economic or cultural criteria. 

But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US. 
----
*More Realistic Comparisons Involve a Broader View of the World*

Why not use the UN’s human development index instead? That would seem to make at least as much sense if we’re devoted to looking at “developed countries.” 

So, let’s do that. Here we see that the OECD’s list contains Turkey, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Chile. So, if we're honest with ourselves, that must mean that other countries with similar human development rankings are also suitable for comparisons to the US. 

Well, Turkey and Mexico have HDI numbers at .75. So, let’s include other countries with HDI numbers either similar or higher. That means we should include The Bahamas, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, and Latvia. 

You can see where this is going. If we include countries that have HDI numbers similar to — or at least as high as — OECD members Turkey and Mexico, we find that the picture for the United States murder rate looks very different (correctly using murder rates and not gun-deaths rates):



Wow, that US sure has a pretty low murder rate compared to all those countries that are comparable to some OECD members.  In fact, Russia, Costa Rica and Lithuania have all been invited to begin the process of joining the OECD (Russia is on hold for obvious political reasons).  But all those countries have higher murder rates than the US. (I wonder what excuse Fisher will manufacture for leaving off those countries after they join the OECD.)

Things get even more interesting if we add American states with low murder rates.

*And why not include data from individual states? It has always been extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” The US is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics. (Mexico deserves the same analysis, by the way.) Many states have murder rates that place them on the short list of low-crime places in the world. Why do we conveniently ignore them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones: *


----------



## Crixus (Dec 7, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't a coincidence we have the most guns and the most mass killings, cop killings, school shootings, accidental shootings, cops killing the most people, toddler shootings...  It is frankly quite silly to think it is a coincidence.  *These are things that are rare with strong gun control*.
> ...




Maybe these kids to,


Cologne school massacre - Wikipedia



That dude made his flame thrower and weapons in his garage.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And you again lie by not telling the actual truth.....here is the truth...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.




Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. *

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. 

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. 

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate. *

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




What he won't admit?  We have had semi auto rifles since World War 2.......and few mass shootings till recently....what changed?  The left wing welfare state has attacked the American family.....


----------



## MikeK (Dec 7, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Well that’s not a very good guess. They would have written “standard weaponry of today” _or_ “muskets”. They specifically said *arms* for a reason. The government answers to the people. If the subordinate can have a weapon, the superior sure as hell can.


Do you truly believe that if the authors of the Second Amendment were able to foresee the existence of WMD they would enable each and every ordinary citizen to keep and bear such devices?  There were crazies and hot-heads back then, too.  So project yourself into the role of one who is re-writing the Second Amendment:  Would you allow for anyone and everyone to keep and bear RPGs?  Hand grenades?  Claymore mines?  .50 machine guns?  How about suitcase nukes?  They all are "arms."  I am just as pro-Second Amendment as you or anyone else -- but I draw the line.  While I would like to own a Thompson (for purely aesthetic reasons) I would not care to have them as readily available as are pump shotguns.  Too many screwballs walking among us.

No.  I maintain my _standard weaponry of today_ theory.  Because I believe that is what was in the pre-conscious thinking of those Founders.  They were presuming muskets, flintlock pistols, swords and daggers, which are the reasonably expanded equivalent of today's semi-auto shoulder and hand guns.

I know I could get a Thompson if I were willing to go through the bureaucratic licensing ordeal, which I am not.  So I am content with that.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 7, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> None of those things are true in many of the most safe civilized countries.  Not really clear which ones you reference actually.


Philippines.  Mexico.  El Salvador.  Haiti (where the cops will shove a broomstick up your ass if you disrespect them).  And there are still more.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 8, 2017)

A father eating at a Popeye’s restaurant -- and carrying his licensed handgun -- shot a would-be robber dead Wednesday after the thief threatened the man's family at gunpoint and demanded the dad's belongings.

The San Antonio Police Department said Ander Herrera, 19, walked into the restaurant on South Flores Street just after 9 p.m. Wednesday and demanded Carlos Molina hand over his cash.

Molina, 32, said he had no money because he had just bought his family a meal. The gunman then turned toward the counter and started yelling at a manager who was trying to take cover, FOX29 reported.

Authorities said two more members of Molina’s family came out of a restroom amid the commotion and the suspect pointed his gun at them.

Molina then whipped out his gun and shot Herrera several times, killing him.

It wasn't clear if any charges would be filed in connection with the incident, but officers said they believe Molina fired at Herrera in defense of a third person, FOX29 reported.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 8, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-shootings-since-sandy-hook_us_58503d99e4b04c8e2bb232eb


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 8, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Violent crime is rising right now thanks to guns.  We have lots of unrest caused by police shooting lots of people.  This is something that doesn't happen in countries with strong gun control.  Our police shoot a lot of people because they are themselves often shot.  Again this doesn't happen when there is strong gun control.  So because we have weak gun control we have all this unrest which is increasing violent crime.


----------



## Likkmee (Dec 8, 2017)

I live in a country where pretty much everyone has guns but the leading cause of death is motorcycle incidents. Once in a while some scumbag gets shot or one caps someone over a drug deal but basically its a non-issue. OTOH we don't have an over medicated population of mentally ill drug addicted assholes


----------



## MikeK (Dec 8, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control.
> 
> [...]


What category of Americans commit most of these crimes?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 8, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control.
> ...



You tell me.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 8, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Violent crime is rising right now thanks to guns.  We have lots of unrest caused by police shooting lots of people.  This is something that doesn't happen in countries with strong gun control.  Our police shoot a lot of people because they are themselves often shot.  Again this doesn't happen when there is strong gun control.  So because we have weak gun control we have all this unrest which is increasing violent crime.


How much of this rising rate of gun crime perpetrated with legally owned guns?  If you will take the time to research the FBI statistics you will find the percentage to e relatively small.  Most gun crime is effected with illegal guns.

So what do you suggest we do about that?  Enact more repressive gun laws -- as we've been doing with the drug laws for half a century with absolute zero effect?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 8, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Violent crime is rising right now thanks to guns.  We have lots of unrest caused by police shooting lots of people.  This is something that doesn't happen in countries with strong gun control.  Our police shoot a lot of people because they are themselves often shot.  Again this doesn't happen when there is strong gun control.  So because we have weak gun control we have all this unrest which is increasing violent crime.
> ...



Lots of legal guns, guarantees lots of illegal guns.  We need stricter gun control.  Where there is strong gun control, there is little gun crime.

Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Hmmm .... I guess the Reality Bus doesn't visit your neighborhood, huh?


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Flawed logic, at best - ignorance, in all probability - and, sheer insanity, at worst.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Your links are garbage......the 1,300 kids.....you were already shown that almost all of those homes were criminals or the homes of addicts and alcoholics.....and the violent crime increase is because of the Ferguson effect, people like you attacking the police.....and the police officer deaths in states with guns....was shown to be crap too....

anti gunners like you can't make their case without lying.........


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No....we had crime increasing during the end of obama because of the Ferguson effect....created by obama and his left wing black lives matter supporters and their other assholes in the ACLU attacking the police.....getting them to stand down....

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. *

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. 

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. 

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate. *

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yes...criminals steal guns....what we need is a law that says it is against the law to steal guns.

Meanwhile.....law abiding Americans, with their legal guns, stop violent criminals 1,500,000 times a year according to bill clinton and his Department of Justice Study....just one study of many that shows defensive gun use is common for law abiding Americans......


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



as to the Stanford study by anti gun hack, john donahue......why is it that you anti gunners always have to lie.....?

Stanford law prof gets it wrong on guns -- right-to-carry reduces crime, not the other way around



*So the game is to find states where murder rates fell relative to the states adopting right-to-carry laws, then use that as evidence of right-to-carry laws causing an increase in violent crime.  Before this researchers made an across-the-board comparison between states that changed their laws and states that haven’t changed them. *

This new study picks out just two to four states, and in many cases effectively just use Hawaii to compare with right-to-carry states.  In the cases of Idaho and Minnesota, over 96 percent of the comparison is just with Hawaii.  For Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah, Hawaii counts for between 72 percent and 83 percent of the comparison.

The study claims that police simply “underestimate criminality by permit holders.”  But Donohue's only evidence is two news stories from 2000 and 2007 where permit holders committed crimes.  Neither story shows any failure by police to record the incidents.  The study never mentions how large the police error rate would have to be in order to for their results to hold.

Take Michigan, where Donohue claims that right-to-carry laws increased the violent crime rate by 8.8 percent.  During 2015, 22 of Michigan's roughly 600,000 permit holders were convicted of violent crimes, and many of those had nothing to do with guns. Permit holders accounted for 0.053 percent of violent crime in the state.  Therefore, Michigan experienced an increase in crime that was 166 times greater than permit holder’s share of violent crimes.  And all this assumes that permit holders didn’t stop or deter any crimes.

For these results to be plausible, Michigan police departments would have to be missing 99.4 percent of cases where permit holders have committed violent crimes.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Violent crime is rising right now thanks to guns. We have lots of unrest caused by police shooting lots of people. This is something that doesn't happen in countries with strong gun control. Our police shoot a lot of people because they are themselves often shot. Again this doesn't happen when there is strong gun control. So because we have weak gun control we have all this unrest which is increasing violent crime.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


That seems to have a positive effect on crime.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



So you prefer to ignore reality? Fact is gun crime isn't a problem with strong gun control.  It certainly is a problem when you have the most guns and weak gun laws.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states | Stanford News

There Have Been Over 200 School Shooting Incidents Since The Sandy Hook Massacre | HuffPost


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Our cops shoot way more people than other countries because they themselves are shot and killed way more than other countries.  This happens because we have weak laws and too many guns.  It does not happen when there is strong gun control.  All this shooting has led to unrest and increased violent crime.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No.....as more Americans bought and carried guns for 21 years our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%....so Americans having guns isn't the issue.  The only thing that changed happened in 2014 when obama, you and other democrats decided that attacking the police was a good idea, and letting violent criminals out of jail was a better idea....that is what changed.

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.*

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.*

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And you have no idea what you are talking about...

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.*

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.*

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Thanks to the Bill Clinton crime bill and added gun control.  Now that gun laws are getting weakened we see this:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



And that is all because of too many guns.  Police shoot too many people because of too many guns.  Cops are shot too often because of too many guns.  These things don't happen with strong gun control.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. *

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. 

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. 

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate. *

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No...cops are shot because the sociopaths our welfare state has created.  Law abiding citizens who own close to 600 million guns are not shooting police officers.  Young males, in democrat controlled voting districts, raised by single, teenage mothers and without fathers, are shooting police officers with guns that they cannot legally own, buy or carry....and then, when they are caught with those guns, and even when they commit crimes with those guns.....you and the other democrats keep letting them go.....


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



That's funny, countries with much stronger social programs and gun control don't have a cops getting shot problem.  Try again.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And the truth....


We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. *

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. 

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. 

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate. *

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Thanks to the Bill Clinton crime bill and added gun control. Now that gun laws are getting weakened we see this:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




The countries of Europe were set back culturally by World War 2.....they are now catching up...their crime rates and gun crime rates are going up.....massively.......they are where we were in the mid 1960s......and they have taken guns away from the victims of violent crime...so nothing will lower their violent crime rates...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And you will post the lie without the truth every single time....


We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. *

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. 

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. 

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate. *

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Our violent crime rates have gone up with concealed carry.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Thanks to the Bill Clinton crime bill and added gun control. Now that gun laws are getting weakened we see this:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states | Stanford News

There Have Been Over 200 School Shooting Incidents Since The Sandy Hook Massacre | HuffPost


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...





We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

*The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. *

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. 

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. 

*Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate. *

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states | Stanford News

There Have Been Over 200 School Shooting Incidents Since The Sandy Hook Massacre | HuffPost


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
> Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
> US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
> Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
> ...




Each one of your links has been shown to be a lie...every single one....either direct lies or out of context.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And the truth....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study,  the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

*Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million*

*--*------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

*DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)*

*Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."*

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
*If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....*


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Seems more guns increases crime.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
> ...



Anyone can go to a news site and search shooting and see how much of a problem we have.  Cops killed, school shootings, children shot, mass shootings...   These are rare in countries with strong gun control.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)




----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2017)

Brain357 said:


>




Nice lie with the graphic....now the truth...

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries

Why Turkey and Chile and Bulgaria? Well, those countries are OECD members, and many who use the "developed country" moniker often use the OECD members countries as a _de facto_ list of the "true" developed countries. Of course, membership in the OECD is highly political and hardly based on any objective economic or cultural criteria. 

But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US. 
----
*More Realistic Comparisons Involve a Broader View of the World*

Why not use the UN’s human development index instead? That would seem to make at least as much sense if we’re devoted to looking at “developed countries.” 

So, let’s do that. Here we see that the OECD’s list contains Turkey, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Chile. So, if we're honest with ourselves, that must mean that other countries with similar human development rankings are also suitable for comparisons to the US. 

Well, Turkey and Mexico have HDI numbers at .75. So, let’s include other countries with HDI numbers either similar or higher. That means we should include The Bahamas, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, and Latvia. 

You can see where this is going. If we include countries that have HDI numbers similar to — or at least as high as — OECD members Turkey and Mexico, we find that the picture for the United States murder rate looks very different (correctly using murder rates and not gun-deaths rates):



Wow, that US sure has a pretty low murder rate compared to all those countries that are comparable to some OECD members.  In fact, Russia, Costa Rica and Lithuania have all been invited to begin the process of joining the OECD (Russia is on hold for obvious political reasons).  But all those countries have higher murder rates than the US. (I wonder what excuse Fisher will manufacture for leaving off those countries after they join the OECD.)

Things get even more interesting if we add American states with low murder rates.

*And why not include data from individual states? It has always been extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” The US is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics. (Mexico deserves the same analysis, by the way.) Many states have murder rates that place them on the short list of low-crime places in the world. Why do we conveniently ignore them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones: *


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 9, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



You want to compare us to Venezuela?  Yeah they are really economically and politically stable.  So you are saying if you compare us to shit holes we look ok?   I prefer to compare us to stable, civilized countries.  

Venezuela inflation reaches quadruple digits, hitting 1,369 percent


----------



## P@triot (Dec 10, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Violent crime is rising right now thanks to guns.


Another egregious *lie* by a lefty. Violent crime has been decreasing while gun sales have been increasing.



 

The _only_ increase we’ve been seeing is from the disgusting ANTIFA fascists who are determined to assualt everyone who won’t embrace their fascism.

Violent Crime


----------



## P@triot (Dec 10, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> You want to compare us to Venezuela?  Yeah they are really economically and politically stable.


And _why_ are they not economically and politically stable? Oh yeah - they implemented the same idiotic left-wing policies that you call for here in the U.S.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 10, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Yes...criminals steal guns....what we need is a law that says it is against the law to steal guns.


2AG just brilliantly illustrated the stupidity of progressives with that simple statement. The left can’t grasp that criminals don’t obey the law.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 10, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




How about we do what the author pointed out...

*And why not include data from individual states? It has always been extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” The US is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics. (Mexico deserves the same analysis, by the way.) Many states have murder rates that place them on the short list of low-crime places in the world. Why do we conveniently ignore them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's jus*


----------



## Rustic (Dec 10, 2017)

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 10, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Violent crime is rising right now thanks to guns.
> ...




And here you have comparisons of states...

Why do we conveniently ignore them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones: 





We see that OECD members Chile and Turkey have murder rates higher than Colorado. Perhaps they should try adopting Colorado’s laws and allow sale of handguns and semi-automatic rifles to all non-felon adults. That might help them bring their murder rates down a little.

But you know that’s not the conclusion we're supposed to come to.Comparisons can never work in that direction. The comparisons should only be used to compare the US to countries with restrictive gun laws and low murder rates. Comparisons with countries that have restrictive gun laws (and/or few private guns) and murder rates similar to or higher than US rates (i.e., Latin America, the Caribbean and the Baltic States.)

Nevertheless, we have yet to see any objective reason why only OECD countries should be included or why countries similar in the HDI to Turkey and Mexico should be excluded.

But before we wrap up, let’s look at the murder rates in all these countries alongside the number of civilian guns per 100 residents. (The x axis is civilian guns per 100 residents, and the y axis is murder rates in x per 100,000.)

Here’s the scatter plot:




Obviously, the US is big outlier in terms of guns per capita. But in terms of murder rate, it’s very much in the middle of these countries. 

Things look even better for some areas of the US. If I include low-crime states, we get this (The x axis is civilian guns per 100 residents and y axis is murder rate in x per 100,000):




Of course, if I added countries like France and Sweden, you’d see many more dots here near Bulgaria with low gun totals and very low murder rates.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Violent crime is rising right now thanks to guns.
> ...


FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > You want to compare us to Venezuela?  Yeah they are really economically and politically stable.
> ...



Dictators mostly.  Europe is quite stable.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Weird.  That link is violent crime in general, not gun violence.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year


Also from your link:

'"Chicago accounted for more than 20% of the nationwide murder increase in 2016, despite being home to less than 1% of the U.S. population,' the center concluded."


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



We were discussing violent crime.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> We were discussing violent crime.


See this:

'"Chicago accounted for more than 20% of the nationwide murder increase in 2016, despite being home to less than 1% of the U.S. population," the center concluded."'


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

These 4 countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths — here's what the US can learn


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




Did you expect an anti gunner to actually tell the truth?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> These 4 countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths — here's what the US can learn




And of course those 4 countries haven't done any such thing...the U.K....gun crime is increasing at an enormous rate, dittos Australia......Japan....you have seen that it is the police state they run, not gun control that keeps their gun crime low...oh, and my recent thread on the long prison sentences for the Yakuza who use guns also works...which is what 2nd Amendment supporters keep telling you guys...punish gun criminals with long prison sentences, leave normal gun owners alone...

Norway....really.....the site of one of the worst mass shootings in the world.....and of course, they don't have different races and cultures mixing together their creating conflict and crime....all 4 of those countries have homongenous societies........

It was a dumb link....without a real understanding of the issue.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> These 4 countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths — here's what the US can learn




The truth about Britain.....your link doesn't know the truth...

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

*The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent. 

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent . *




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years. 

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger. 

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma. 

-----

*Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. *

*He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. *

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that *handguns *and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

*The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> These 4 countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths — here's what the US can learn




Australia....

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

*The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.*

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

*These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.*

*----*

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

*Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.*

*-------------*

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

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

*Gun crime soars*
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:


There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
*Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts*
In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > These 4 countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths — here's what the US can learn
> ...



None of what you said changes they have FAR less gun crime than we do.  UK, yeah that Brexit thing was dumb, but still very few people are shot and killed.  You can keep lying, but it doesn't change the facts.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> These 4 countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths — here's what the US can learn




Japan....long prison sentences for Yakuza who use guns.....and a police state where they have a 99.5% conviction rate.....

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

*A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

*
And now the truth about Japan....

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.


Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%. 
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




You are the one lying......the gun control laws have nothing to do with their low gun crime rates...since gun crime is going up in both Australia and the U.K. after they banned and confiscated guns.......you have been shown to be clueless about this issue over and over again...


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > These 4 countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths — here's what the US can learn
> ...



We wish we had so few gun murders.  You can't be serious right?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)




----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




They banned and confiscated guns....and now their gun crime rate is going through the roof, their violent crime rate is going through the roof......their gun control laws don't work....criminals in Britain are getting all the guns they want...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And that has nothing to do with our gun laws......it has to do with our criminal culture......and in Australia, Canada, England......their gun crime rates are all going up....with their extreme gun control.....gun control laws don't effect the gun crime rate.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And the gun laws have no bearing on those rates......how the criminals in each country view murdering each other governs those rates.  And the one thing you notice....all of the countries except for the U.S........are all homogenous, without the mix of races and cultures.  That is changing.....and the gun violence rates in those countries are going up as they import violent young males from 3rd world countries and as their welfare states can no longer civilize the young males born into those countries.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 11, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Really? Didn't we just go over all of the women in Germany suffering horrific assaults and rapes at the hands of muslim migrants? You can't seem to keep your story straight...


----------



## Little-Acorn (Dec 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> And that has nothing to do with our gun laws......it has to do with our criminal culture......and in Australia, Canada, England......their gun crime rates are all going up....with their extreme gun control.....gun control laws don't effect the gun crime rate.


Every time the "gun control" advocates put these laws into place, usually the same advocates pop up a year or two later, wringing their hands over the latest mass shooting or vehicular mass murder, and wailing that the laws are not adequate, that we need "just a few more reasonable restrictions". In other words, they are admitting that the laws they put in place, didn't work.

And this is the result EVERY time. No leftist has ever said that at last we have enough gun laws. Instead, no matter how many are enacted, the response is that it wasn't enough, it didn't work.

There's a name for the mental process by which people like this keep trying the same thing over and over, and expect a different result.

Why do they keep demanding more of the same gun laws, often laws that have been tried in the past and have always failed? It can no longer be claimed that they didn't know it would turn out that way. They have tried it too often, and failed too often. They KNOW their demands won't produce the advertised result. Yet they keep demanding the same thing, over and over, with more and more restrictions and regulation.

What are they really trying to accomplish?


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



And yet Germany has much lower crime rates than us.


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime up in U.S. for second straight year

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-shootings-since-sandy-hook_us_58503d99e4b04c8e2bb232eb


----------



## Brain357 (Dec 11, 2017)

Little-Acorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And that has nothing to do with our gun laws......it has to do with our criminal culture......and in Australia, Canada, England......their gun crime rates are all going up....with their extreme gun control.....gun control laws don't effect the gun crime rate.
> ...



If guns aren't a problem, why is it we have toddlers killing so many people with guns?  This isn't a problem in countries with strong gun control.
Toddlers Killed More Americans than Terrorists in 2015


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
> Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
> US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
> Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
> ...


Tell you what  you get our crime rate down to zero and then and only then will I consider getting rid of my guns.  I probably won't get rid of them but I will consider it.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 12, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



And that has nothing to do with their gun control laws...again, it is their culture not their gun control laws.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 12, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Yeah.....give us the follow up on those toddler shootings....none of the reports that are linked actually state what happened...odds are the parent or an older kid did the shooting.....and none of them mention the nature of the home...since the other link you gave for kids getting killed was filled with criminals and drug users I would need to know more before we trust your link....


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2017)




----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2017)

Brain357 said:


> With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control.


Which is why you should leave. The U.S. is clearly to scary and rough a place for you to live. Talk is cheap. If it actually bothered you as much as you like to pretend it does - you'd get the fuck out. Cuba has gone control (and beautiful weather). I promise you that Raul Castro would welcome you with open arms too.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2018)

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms...

Homeowner warns man kicking front door that he has a gun. Man kicks down door anyway — and pays big.


----------



## Markle (Jan 30, 2018)

Brain357 said:


> With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, school shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
> Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
> US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
> Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
> ...



Still lying.  No surprise.

As you have been shown before but are not capable of accepting facts, allow me to remind you.

*The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. *
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009


Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.


Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.


The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.








The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.


Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online



UK is violent crime capital of Europe


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2018)

Markle said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control.
> ...


Like all lefties, Brain(less) must resort to pathological lying since the facts do not align with the fascist ideology.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 22, 2018)

There were in fact fully automatic firearms at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The Puckle gun (1718) and the Belton flintlock (1777) are just two of many automatic weapons of that era.

  

These Guns Dispel The Notion The Founding Fathers Could Never Have Imagined Modern Assault Rifles


----------



## LuckyDuck (Feb 22, 2018)

hangover said:


> God is positive energy....guns are negative energy that destroys....therefore you worship Satan.


God???  Well, prayer has been shown to work no better than chance, so it's a pretty safe bet that there isn't one.  No matter how hard you pray, if someone is determined to kill you, they will succeed at some point.......no God involved.
Better to have a firearm.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 24, 2018)

The *facts* are so important (which is why the left doesn’t want you to hear them).


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 24, 2018)

...aaaaaaaand more fact too:


----------



## P@triot (Feb 24, 2018)

The *facts* are so important (which is why the left doesn’t want you to hear them).

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control


----------



## P@triot (Feb 25, 2018)

Why does the left always support what *fails* to be effective or successful?


> Over the course of the January call, which lasted more than 13 minutes, the tipster warned the F.B.I. that Mr. Cruz had been adrift since his mother’s death in November. She said that Mr. Cruz had “the mental capacity of a 12 to a 14 year old.” The tipster provided four Instagram accounts for Mr. Cruz, which she said showed photos of sliced up animals and the firearms he had amassed.


So to recap - the left wants to give more power and control to the government that *failed* to act to protect the children and take away citizens right to defend themselves.


----------



## asaratis (Feb 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Why does the left always support what *fails* to be effective or successful?
> 
> 
> > Over the course of the January call, which lasted more than 13 minutes, the tipster warned the F.B.I. that Mr. Cruz had been adrift since his mother’s death in November. She said that Mr. Cruz had “the mental capacity of a 12 to a 14 year old.” The tipster provided four Instagram accounts for Mr. Cruz, which she said showed photos of sliced up animals and the firearms he had amassed.
> ...


The left supports anything that promotes total subjugation by the government....and government ownership of everything, including guns.

Liberalism is a mental disorder!


----------



## P@triot (Feb 25, 2018)

Damn it! If only Sweden had banned hand grenades, then obviously none of this _ever_ would have happened.


> In January, a man at a train station on the outskirts of Stockholm died after picking up a discarded grenade, which he mistook for a toy. In August 2016, an 8-year-old British boy was killed in a grenade attack on an apartment in the city of Gothenburg while visiting family members.
> 
> Grenade attacks are perhaps the most striking example of increasing crime in Sweden. The number of grenade attacks in Sweden has risen dramatically, jumping from eight in 2014 to a staggering 52 in 2016.


Of course, my comment above was satirical. Explosives are absolutely banned in Sweden (as is carrying any kind of firearm - though you may own them and hunt with them). So how is that whole “banned hand grenade” thing working out in Sweden, progressives? 

Russian Aggression, Rising Crime Rates Could Factor in Swedish Elections


----------



## P@triot (Feb 25, 2018)

Thank God the U.S. Constitution affords this man the right to keep and bear arms...


> “It’s OK to have a weapon in your home and protect yourself and your family,” he told the station.


The students in Parkland, FL were are unarmed and are now dead. This man was armed, and both he and his family are perfectly safe today.

Armed father sees intruder crouching outside his children’s bedroom window. Dad doesn’t hesitate.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Thank God the U.S. Constitution affords this man the right to keep and bear arms...
> 
> 
> > “It’s OK to have a weapon in your home and protect yourself and your family,” he told the station.
> ...



God has nothing to do with it.  The founders gave us a Godless Constitution.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 28, 2018)

The *truth* is so important. The *facts* are absolutely critical. We, as a society, cannot allow uninformed, emotional, irrational progressives set policy or build their false narratives.

School shootings are down. Way down. And yet the left is in a full on panic-mode tizzy demanding that firearms be banned and the 2nd Amendment torn up. If we didn’t ban firearms in the 1990’s, we sure as hell shouldn’t ban them now.

Schools Safer Now Than They Were in 1990s, According to New Study


----------



## P@triot (Feb 28, 2018)

Lakhota said:


> God has nothing to do with it.  The founders gave us a Godless Constitution.


God gave us the founders. And God gave us our rights (free will). And you continue to dodge the millions of instances where crimes are prevented because the American people were armed.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 28, 2018)

Nothing does more to advance the cause of liberty or promote conservatism than a progressive in front of a microphone.

Gun show in Florida attracts most attendees ever after deadly mass shooting at Parkland high school


----------



## Trump The Mad King (Mar 1, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



More Americans have died from gun-related deaths since 1968 than in all American wars combined - over 1 million deaths total.

Actually, I think God is laughing at us regarding the 2nd Amendment and our obsession with guns.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 1, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > God has nothing to do with it.  The founders gave us a Godless Constitution.
> ...


I agree with you, P@triot.

Loco Lakhota is too liberal to mention the fact that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

While by design, neither the Constitution nor the Preamble to the Constitution include references to God, the Declaration of Independence does.  It clearly states in the first paragraph that we entitled to the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle us as a nation.

In the second paragraph, it states that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.

Whether the liberals and atheists among us agree or not, the Declaration of Independence was the foundation of our codes of moral, ethical and governmental standards.

Since our founding fathers wisely precluded the establishment of a national religion, they excluded references to God in the Constitution.

God and prayers have been eliminated from public (government) schools today, though both are still present in private and parochial schools.  Both the Senate and the House of Representatives still open each session with a prayer.  We still have a national prayer day.  Presidents often take part in prayer breakfast gatherings.  Politicians still profess faith in God.

For those interested, below is a link to the Declaration of Independence.  It is a good read and worthy of perusal from beginning to end.

Preamble to the Constitution


> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


[The spelling of "defence" here is the British version.]


The Declaration of Independence: Full text


----------



## Trump The Mad King (Mar 1, 2018)

asaratis said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



We have an "unalienable" right to kill each other with guns....over 1 million deaths and counting since 1968.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 1, 2018)

Trump The Mad King said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Unlike the disarmed citizens of communist regimes.  They die by the tens of millions, stupid.

Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia

Many historians have suggested that Stalin was responsible for death total of around *20 million*, citing much higher victim totals from executions, Gulag camps, deportations and other causes. Simon Sebag Montefiore suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of between 20 and *25 million* people..

Mao bested him with something between 49 and 78 MILLION people.

Top Ten Most Evil Dictators of All Time (in order of kill count) – Popten




You are a fucking idiot!


----------



## Trump The Mad King (Mar 1, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Trump The Mad King said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



So what are you saying, goober??  If a bunch of untrained Russian citizens were armed, they would have defeated the Red Army?  LOL, that's a good one.

Nazi Germany couldn't defeat the Red Army, but untrained Russians citizens would.  Got it, moron.

I'm afraid you're the fucking idiot.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 1, 2018)

Trump The Mad King said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Trump The Mad King said:
> ...


No, fuckstick, I didn't say that.  You did.

You are incapable of understanding what I said.


----------



## Trump The Mad King (Mar 1, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Trump The Mad King said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



You don't understand what you said, dumb fuck.  Your post has nothing to do with guns and you don't know what the fuck you're trying to say because you're an intellectual lightweight.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2018)

I’ve said for a long time now that progressivism is literally a cancer that is killing the United States in particular (and the world in general). All evidence and results support that conclusion.


> "Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila


As each progressive policy destroys the U.S., they scramble to implement more of their failed policies citing they just didn’t swallow enough of the cancer the last time - while attempting to blame liberty for the problem. The current idiotic cries to ban firearms is a prime example of that.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 5, 2018)

We’ve done it the failed left-wing way for almost 3 decades now. It’s time we ignore the ignorant and immature idealists and instead start listening to the experts...


> Schmidt began by pointing out that just a few decades ago, many high school students would have a hunting rifle in their vehicle in the school parking lot.


When you create victim zones, you _will_ get victims.

Wisconsin sheriff pens viral letter addressing the ‘root cause’ behind Parkland shooting


----------



## P@triot (Mar 5, 2018)

We’ve done it the failed left-wing way for almost 3 decades now. It’s time we ignore the ignorant and immature idealists and instead start listening to the experts...


> The Crime Prevention Research Center found that from the 1950s through July 10, 2016, *98.4% of mass shootings have happened in gun-free zones*, The Blaze reported.


When you create victim zones, you _will_ get victims. The left has caused the unnecessary death of hundreds of children. This is an easy problem to solve that doesn’t require tyranny or the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. It just requires us to do what all successful solutions do - ignore the left.

Lawmaker Says Repealing Gun-Free Zone Act Would Make Schools Safer


----------



## P@triot (Mar 5, 2018)

Despite the absolute best efforts by the left and their media.... 


> *Most Americans blame the shooting on failures by the local, state and federal governments*, according to a Rasmussen Reports study. The study was done in response to the Valentine’s Day shooting that left 17 people dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.


The American people refuse to accept the propaganda, refuse to turn on the U.S. Constitution, and refuse to surrender liberty. Failed left-wing policy caused the problem and then the left attempted to exploit it for power and control. As always, they failed.

Study shows most Americans blame government mistakes, not guns, for Florida shooting


----------



## P@triot (Mar 6, 2018)

Boom! A knockout blow to the left...


> Because when the policies *fail* to produce the results you are promising to your constituents, you’ll be back with more reasons on why we’ve gotta infringe on 2nd Amendment rights


This is what failed left-wing policy has been doing for the past 118 years. Every time it fails, the left screams that we just didn’t do enough of it and then they demand that more government control and less liberty will solve the problem _this_ time.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 6, 2018)

Thank God this man has the *right* to keep and bear arms (despite the left’s deepest desire to strip him of that right)...

Crooks break into home, beat owner with metal pipe. But victim grabs his gun — and the tables turn.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 16, 2018)

Thank God for the right to keep and bear arms...

8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15


----------



## P@triot (Mar 16, 2018)

More victims than Parkland...so much for the left-wing narrative about firearms.

Stabbing rampage at Pa. high school leaves 21 injured


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 16, 2018)

SuperDemocrat said:


> The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?



Why would you worship a God who causes so much damage and killing?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 28, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Why would you worship a God who causes so much damage and killing?


Why would _you_ accuse God of doing something he *didn’t* do and has *never* done?


----------



## Trump The Mad King (Mar 28, 2018)

P@triot said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Trump The Mad King said:
> ...



Nope, that's how you worthless Repugs act.  That's why the Repugs in Congress have never compromised on a bill since Obama became President.  That's why Repugs threw a temper tantrum the entire time Obama was President, voting over 50 times to repeal ObamaCare and then failing to repeal it now that Trump is president.

The biggest cry baby pussies in the world is you and the Repug Party.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 28, 2018)

This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic...


> Rev. Al Sharpton’s half-brother was charged with murder in a Sunday shooting death in Alabama after participating in Saturday’s anti-gun “March For Our Lives,” according to a report.


There’s a reason these people want you disarmed. They have no intention of giving up their firearms. And they desperately want helpless, unarmed victims.

Al Sharpton’s Half-Brother Charged With Murder In Shooting One Day After Participating In Gun March


----------



## asaratis (Mar 29, 2018)

You can safely bet your life that Al Sharpton is surrounded by thugs with guns 24/7.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 29, 2018)

Once again a mass shooting was averted because of more guns...not less.


> Pulse wasn’t the killer’s intended target. It was Disney. At 10 pm, the killer arrived at the Disney World shopping and entertainment area. He used a stroller to conceal his weapon. Security camera footage shows him passing multiple police and security officers and even watching their movements. It apparently made him rethink his choice.
> 
> *Good guys with guns stopped a terror attack on Disney that night*, and they didn’t even know they were doing it. Imagine if more people open-carried. How many more attacks would that stop before they even got started?


I marvel at the left’s shameless ability to be wrong 24x7 but to continue with the same idiotic narrative.

The narrative for the Pulse nightclub killing just fell apart and the media doesn’t give a crap


----------



## Doc1 (Mar 29, 2018)

Trump The Mad King said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



Ainchu all tough and shit? Your boy's Mc and Ryan just gave your side everything they wanted in that ugly omnibus.


----------



## Doc1 (Mar 29, 2018)

I've always found it interesting that when the Second Amendment was put in there the Military and the people all used the same weapons.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 30, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Once again a mass shooting was averted because of more guns...not less.
> 
> 
> > Pulse wasn’t the killer’s intended target. It was Disney. At 10 pm, the killer arrived at the Disney World shopping and entertainment area. He used a stroller to conceal his weapon. Security camera footage shows him passing multiple police and security officers and even watching their movements. It apparently made him rethink his choice.
> ...


They still think socialism will work....this time.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 10, 2018)

Absolutely nothing ends in catastrophic *failure* like left-wing policy...


> Crime in the UK has spiraled out of control. There are no guns in the country, and yet the murder rate in London has now overtaken that of New York City. How can that be!? People were still hurting and killing each other, but they just moved on to doing it with knives.
> 
> They’re also confiscating — and this isn’t a joke — scissors, pliers, screwdrivers, hammers… anything AT ALL that might be used as a weapon. What’s next? A ban on hands and feet?


Yes...progressivism really _is_ that stupid. Take away guns, people will kill with knives. Take away knives, people will kill with hammers. Take away hammers, people will kill with automobiles. Take away automobiles, people will strangle their victims to death. And all the while, the idiotic left-wing policies just set society back centuries.

Quick, hide the cutlery!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Absolutely nothing ends in catastrophic *failure* like left-wing policy...
> 
> 
> > Crime in the UK has spiraled out of control. There are no guns in the country, and yet the murder rate in London has now overtaken that of New York City. How can that be!? People were still hurting and killing each other, but they just moved on to doing it with knives.
> ...



You get your ass handed to you in another area and you just start another one hoping some of us won't see it.  Well, hate bater.  I'll always find it.  

It's my right to have my firearm(s) for home defense.  If I go through the proper steps and get the proper licensing I can also have a CCW.  No one is even remotely trying to seize my weapons.  If they are yours maybe there is a reason like you are a convicted felon on parole or you are a nutjob under a shrinks care that is a danger to yourself or those around you.  There has to be a reason.  I vote for the nutjob reason.  Just because you haven't been bagged by a shrink yet doesn't change the fact you are a nutjob.  

My right to have my firearms is quite secure as per the latest rulings by the Supreme Court.  Yours, not so good.


----------



## miketx (Apr 11, 2018)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.


Stop lying scum bag.


----------



## Crixus (Apr 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded





She needed some training. Would have been better had she killed the guy.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

miketx said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...



And my response to that is:  Drum roll please:


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Crixus said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



That was over a year ago.  Something like that does happen but the law of average is very, very low for it to happen again for quite some time.  Even with a gun, she is about the luckiest woman that ever lived.  And he is about the dumbest.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Apr 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> More victims than Parkland...so much for the left-wing narrative about firearms.
> 
> Stabbing rampage at Pa. high school leaves 21 injured



How many killed?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely nothing ends in catastrophic *failure* like left-wing policy...
> ...



It’s your right, then you continue with “as long”. Do you even understand what a Right is?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



^^^^^ look, is that a rabbit?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Yes, I am very aware.  And I paid for those rights.  You didn't.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I didn't? Good God man, now only trolls have rights!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...





Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh, you have the rights but they were paid for by others.  Enjoy them.  But some of us enjoy them even more because we know the cost.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Yeah, I know, sending your Son off to War, or nursing a Brother back to health from his service is nuttin.

Now, back to those imaginary 600 round per minute AR-15s. Know where I can get one Sarge?


----------



## miketx (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


They got them at walmart right next to the 600 round magazines.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Myself, My Father, My Nephew, My Son, My Uncles, My Grand Father, and many generations past that.  You almost make it not worth it.  But most show that it was worth it.  Thank you for not serving.  You probably save many lives that way.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Grandfather - Won Silver Star in WWI (Nominated for Congressional Medal of Honor for being seriously wounded while saving eight Men)
Father - Wounded at Normandy - Awarded Purple heart - Participated in every major Naval landing in both North Africa and Europe
Father in Law - Survived being severely wounded at the Battle of the Bulge
Uncle- Bailed from a Bomber after hitting a German munitions factory, prisoner of War.
Uncle #2 - Survived the Bataan Death March
Uncle #3 - Killed in Korea
Brother - Vietnam Vet, Injured on night patrol by a sniper
Son - Three 18 months tours in Iraq

Me - Organized group that raised $26,000 to help the local Soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan pay rent or mortgages so their spouses didn't have to borrow money to keep their homes together

And NOT A ONE OF THE ABOVE THOUGHT THEY HAD ANY MORE RIGHT TO FREEDOM THAN ANYONE ELSE HAD.

Oh yeah, forgot. Helped come up with $20K for armor plates to better protect our local Soldiers Vehicles. So maybe by not serving, I actually did save lifes.

hmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

miketx said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



They close to Cosmo?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They have more right to freedom.  You don't but because of them and me, you get it anyway.  Raising money isn't the same thing as putting your own butt on the line.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Sure Sarge. Pretty full of yourself, bet you gave up that pension, huh?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Sure Sarge. Pretty full of yourself, bet you gave up that pension, huh?



They remember me the first of every month for the last 38 years.  You keep working and paying those taxes.  But you probably don't pay taxes either.

So make sure you hide your guns under your bed and buy more guns.  We are coming for your guns.  And we are armed.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Sarge. Pretty full of yourself, bet you gave up that pension, huh?
> ...



Oh, I pay a helluva lot of taxes Sarge.

I remember a retired Marine Corp veteran of Vietnam, helping me put the funds together if I ever served? I told him I hadn't. He said what I was doing far more in Service to the Soldiers then most of the pencil pushers State Side ever would.

So Sarge, I never spent a day in the field, but neither did a hell of a lot of others as well.

So bring your boys, my boys and I would look forward to it.

Oh, no fair using one of those 600 rd per minute AR-15s.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Oh, you have the rights but they were paid for by others.  Enjoy them.  But some of us enjoy them even more because we know the cost.


Yeah...and Duh-ryl “celebrates” the cost of those rights by advocating that they should be revoked by executive fiat.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> We are coming for your guns.  And we are armed.


  

By “we” Duh-ryl means he will be hiding behind his keyboard (where he spent his life) begging other people to carry out his totalitarian desires for him.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> We are coming for your guns.  And *we are armed*.


Which begs the question *why*? If you are “coming” for the guns, wouldn’t it make sense for you to practice what you preach and surrender your firearms? _Oops_...


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > We are coming for your guns.  And *we are armed*.
> ...



Troll been doin troll stuff, it's what they do....


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Thank you for paying those taxes.  That's thanks enough for me.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, you have the rights but they were paid for by others.  Enjoy them.  But some of us enjoy them even more because we know the cost.
> ...



Actually, we aren't coming for sane peoples guns.  We are just coming for yours.  So go buy more guns, more ammo and more Aluminum Foil for those hats.  Meanwhile I will be investing in the Gun Manufacturers and Reynolds Aluminum.  I just as well make a profit on your nonsense.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Got some real estate you might be interested in there Troll.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > We are coming for your guns.  And *we are armed*.
> ...



How about posting where I once said I wanted to ban guns?  Or that anyone that is sane should have to turn in their home defense weapons in.  You sure stepped in it that time.  Just because the trolls keep going on like they do doesn't mean that they are right, nope, they are just trolling trying to make you believe they are.  If they say something wrong enough times, does that make it right?


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Ok then, so you're just coming for guns of conservatives?


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Apr 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


*Hang on to them and hide them because they are going to try to round them up.  It happened under Hitler, otherwise the Jews might have been able to avoid being murdered.  *


----------



## WEATHER53 (Apr 11, 2018)

So would the raid on this guys office be akin to me having arms st home so the government won't break into my house?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 12, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Happy to do it. No thanks required


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 12, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Cuz you live under a bridge don’t mean you own it.


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 12, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



No doubt your name is on that list...dumbass.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 12, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



The NRA gets a piece of gun sales?

Who knew?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 12, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Dude, we get it. You lose about every point and you go off the deep end.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Thinker101 said:
> ...



You didn't know? They are the treasurer on the Secrit Society of the Gun Grabber Society.  First they grab all the guns and destroy them and then they help sell you new ones later one.  And here you thought it was a Liberal Move.  Sales are slowing down and they have to find a way to rescue the Sgt at Arms Remington.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I sound about as silly as your bunch does when you go off on the Gun Ban routine.  Think about it a bit.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 12, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Ignored


----------



## asaratis (Apr 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


He is a total fuckstick.


----------



## asaratis (Apr 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> .......


What ever happened to your booby glasses?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 13, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



You have no constitutional right to look at my babe! Keeping her ALL TO MYSELF


----------



## P@triot (Apr 15, 2018)

This is what happens when oppressive left-wing policy disarms citizens. London is a bloodbath. It’s crime rates and violent crime have now surpassed New York.

Lead Surgeon Says London Hospital Like 'War Zone,' Two More Slaughtered Overnight


----------



## asaratis (Apr 16, 2018)

P@triot said:


> This is what happens when oppressive left-wing policy disarms citizens. London is a bloodbath. It’s crime rates and violent crime have now surpassed New York.
> 
> Lead Surgeon Says London Hospital Like 'War Zone,' Two More Slaughtered Overnight


For a long time, I had on my bucket list an extended tour of Europe to include GB, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Italy and a few other countries.  I have recently replaced it with a plan to visit all major National Parks in the USA....in my own vehicle.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 18, 2018)

Law enforcement literally ran away. And with thousand rioting, more than 6 rounds were needed. Hell, more than 600 rounds were needed.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 18, 2018)

Failed left-wing policy doing what *failed* left-wing policy does...


----------



## P@triot (Apr 21, 2018)

So much for the progressive *false* narrative that "nobody needs a magazine with more than 6 rounds". Once again we see progressives proven wrong and ignorant.

Residents Open Fire with AR-15, 9mm Handgun and Turn the Tide on 7 Invasion Suspects | Breitbart


----------



## P@triot (Apr 22, 2018)

And the debate is officially over!


> Indeed, the CDC study, which the federal agency conducted from 1996 to 1998, found there are *2.46 million defensive gun uses* in the U.S. *each year*.


One would have to be an absolute unhinged lunatic to proclaim that we should trade 30,000 lives (the overwhelming majority of which are the result of criminals killing criminals and suicides) for *2.46 million* lives (almost all of which are honest, law abiding citizens).

Newly revealed government statistics hidden from public dismantle liberal gun control narrative


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> So much for the progressive *false* narrative that "nobody needs a magazine with more than 6 rounds". Once again we see progressives proven wrong and ignorant.
> 
> Residents Open Fire with AR-15, 9mm Handgun and Turn the Tide on 7 Invasion Suspects | Breitbart



You leave out the fact that there was a running feud between those two groups of armed camps.  It was one groups turn to invade the other.  You just condoned the arming of one side of a gang.  Nice job, there cupcake.  Had you gone one link deeper you would have known this.  But that would have meant that your little scenerio would not have been as cut and dried as it seems.  While I am glad that one side of the "Gang" Violence is off the streets that still leaves the other side of the gang violence on the street armed to the teeth.  Some heroes.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> And the debate is officially over!
> 
> 
> > Indeed, the CDC study, which the federal agency conducted from 1996 to 1998, found there are *2.46 million defensive gun uses* in the U.S. *each year*.
> ...



Wow, another Government Conspiracy.  Let's take a look at it.

The study was done by polling 5000 people coming to a conclusion that of 1 million.  That's quite a stretch  and some really crazy math.  

Then the cite they want us to believe out of the *SSRN Abstract Database* comes up as:    The abstract you requested was not found. Please check your search criteria and try again.

And we all should trust the BLAZE in anything they post or say, right?  Wrong.  They bat about 74% on the BS scale when you check them on the truth scale.  Like you, they just make a lot of crap up.

Patriots try and tell  the truth more than 74% of the time, traitor.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Wow, another Government Conspiracy.  Let's take a look at it.


Wait...the CDC conducts “government conspiracies” in your mind now?


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

Progressives are being excoriated for their ignorance and fascism...

WATCH: Joe Rogan Rips Hollywood For Hypocrisy Over Gun Control


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> The study was done by polling 5000 people *coming to a conclusion that of 1 million*.  That's quite a stretch  and some really crazy math.


Aside from your illiteracy forming an astoundingly incoherent sentence, the study was done by the CDC (which holds an _extremely_ anti-gun view).

Now go play with your toys. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, another Government Conspiracy.  Let's take a look at it.
> ...



You post edited the meat of the response.  Well, here it is again.

Wow, another Government Conspiracy. Let's take a look at it.

The study was done by polling 5000 people coming to a conclusion that of 1 million. That's quite a stretch and some really crazy math. 

Then the cite they want us to believe out of the *SSRN Abstract Database* comes up as: The abstract you requested was not found. Please check your search criteria and try again.

And we all should trust the BLAZE in anything they post or say, right? Wrong. They bat about 74% on the BS scale when you check them on the truth scale. Like you, they just make a lot of crap up.

Patriots try and tell the truth more than 74% of the time, traitor.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Progressives are being excoriated for their ignorance and fascism...
> 
> WATCH: Joe Rogan Rips Hollywood For Hypocrisy Over Gun Control



Wow, two fruitcake gun nutters agreeing with each other.  With no other side presented.  Shoot, that would mean the flat earthers must be right, right?  They avoid debates and just rave on as well.  

I never have been a gun grabber.  Okay, I would grab a gun or two if my home were invaded.  But that's about it.  Yet, you morons go off because I present common sense gun regulation that the Supreme Court would agree with.  That means My Ideals are Constitutional and Yours are not.  It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all, it's about States Rights within Reason.  And your bunch is losing that argument as it should.  Just because you are the loudest doesn't make you the rightest.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > The study was done by polling 5000 people *coming to a conclusion that of 1 million*.  That's quite a stretch  and some really crazy math.
> ...



Care to come up with the Study?  When I follow the link that your cite uses here is what comes up
SSRN Electronic Library
*SSRN Abstract Database Search Results*

The abstract you requested was not found.
Please check your search criteria and try again.

 TheBlaze is just making crap up again.  Hoping no one will actually fact check their supporting link.  The story is a fake and so are you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 24, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Again, I do not give a rat fuck how many children die from guns every day.  GOOD.  DIE BITCHES!!!!  DO NOT GIVE A FUCK!!!

I will keep my guns and get motherfucking MACHINE GUNS soon, and you will do nothing but cry in your koolaid.  

This debate is over.  No More Gun Control!!!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I just won't drink the koolaid.  That's for you to drink.  And please, go buy those machine guns.  That should take care of one less problem.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

cwise76 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



The sad part is, His response was actually about the only honest one from his bunch.  Hence the "Cold Dead Hands Video" post I made.  Sometimes Satire it's it dead on the head of the nail.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 24, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




My rights do not come from polls or even the SCOTUS. When a corporate "gubermint" and their owners via the deep state lackeys keep perpetuating false flags and staged shooting events? Feel free to meekly surrender one of the "privileges" granted to you by your masters via the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933 and HJR-192 and accept more draconian legislation like the good little sheeple that you are. You will simply have to excuse me for the fact that I will never comply or acquiesce.

Furthermore, I dare you to put your fat ass on the line for a "door to door" search for non-compliant people that separated themselves and are no longer de-facto employees of USA.INC......I doubt that your testicles have dropped yet and will simply leave it up to someone else?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



If you are found to be a danger to society and I am task to do so by the legal authorities, you can look for me to be knocking on your door with a very large door knocker and a swat team.  If you wish to act like a nutcase expect to be treated like one.


----------



## sparky (Apr 24, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> When a corporate "gubermint" and their owners via the deep state lackeys keep perpetuating false flags and staged shooting events?



oh i almost forgot

that faction of rebellion predicated on our own military willingly killing american women _and _children, because they're getting their marching orders from some entity deep withing the pentagon....






they can call out the black choppers _anytime_ they want, like they did in Vegas>




It's all over the news these days....




~S~


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > When a corporate "gubermint" and their owners via the deep state lackeys keep perpetuating false flags and staged shooting events?
> ...



Ah, the conspiracy nutjobs come out.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 24, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



If you are too stupid and so dumbed down that you can't see that most of the recent mass shooting events have been contrived using the time tested  Hegelian dialectic? I can't help ya...as far as your comment about being a "danger to society"? Whom is the arbiter/decision maker? Is it someone that gives the double middle finger salute to this corporate entity that you lovingly refer to as "guberment"? If so....come knocking at my door and make sure that your last will and testament is properly filled out lest this corporate entity steal the inheritance you intended to leave to your kin.

I opted out out of the UCC and reclaimed my pre-14th amendment status. I am no longer a de-facto employee of USA.INC thus forfeiting the "perks" of being one that came with the cost of having 1/3 of my wages (paid for in fiat scrip) confiscated. I have brass ones and I will defend my right to exist while on my feet instead of on my knees....are we crystal clear on this point?


----------



## asaratis (Apr 24, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


He was commenting on your fucked up attempt to make a coherent sentence.  That's all he needed to quote.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Does this mean  you don't:


Pay any Taxes on Anything
Have a Drivers License
Have any form of insurance 

Have a License and Registration on your Vehicles
and more
And what about the Public Transportation like Roads.  Or the Public Utilities like Electrics and Natural Gas.  And more.

Are you just joshin' or are you just a blood sucker on society that uses the benefits and refuses to contribute to the upkeep.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



He was avoiding the discussion completely because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## sparky (Apr 24, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> If you are too stupid and so dumbed down that you can't see that most of the recent mass shooting events have been contrived using the time tested *Hegelian dialectic*? I can't help ya



*Hegelian dialectic*
/hɪˈɡeɪlɪan, heɪˈɡiː-/
noun
1.
(philosophy) an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)


>>>>













~S~


----------



## P@triot (Apr 24, 2018)

10 people brutally murdered, 15 horribly injured. Not a single call from progressives to ban automobiles. The left doesn’t give a damn about human life.

Toronto van attack leaves 10 pedestrians dead - CNN


----------



## P@triot (Apr 24, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Your post edited all of the *facts* found in the study. Well, here it is again...

And the debate is officially over!


> Indeed, the CDC study, which the federal agency conducted from 1996 to 1998, found there are *2.46 million defensive gun uses* in the U.S. *each year*.


One would have to be an absolute unhinged lunatic to proclaim that we should trade 30,000 lives (the overwhelming majority of which are the result of criminals killing criminals and suicides) for *2.46 million* lives (almost all of which are honest, law abiding citizens).

Newly revealed government statistics hidden from public dismantle liberal gun control narrative


----------



## asaratis (Apr 24, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Listen up, fuckwit!  You couldn't hold your own against anyone over the age of six in a logical debate.

P@triot is lightyears ahead of you.

He is just too polite to tell you to fuck off.

I'm not.

Fuck off!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



One huge problem.  Your study is faked.  There is no evidence that the CDC ever made such a study.  Now, produce that evidence.  Your cites certainly don't.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 24, 2018)

Once again, reality proves that progressive policy is idiotic and ends in failure...

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting


----------



## P@triot (Apr 24, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> One huge problem.  Your study is faked.  There is no evidence that the CDC ever made such a study.




Nobody denies reality quite like Duh-ryl...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 24, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Once again, reality proves that progressive policy is idiotic and ends in failure...
> 
> If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting



Let's see.  Authorities took his guns away from him believing he was unstable.  WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.  They gave the weapons to his Father who returned them to his son.  Outside of Misdemeanor Trespassing at the Whitehouse which was not pursued, he had not broken any gun laws at all in his state at that point.  If the shooting had not happened and the Cops had kept his weapons I am sure you would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with him screaming about his gun rights as a citizen.  

There was no Judge ruling to take his weapons from him therefore, the Cops had no choice but to release those weapons.  Your source saying that onus was on the Father is bogus.  The Weapons owner was the Son.  Even the Father could not legally keep those weapons from his son on demand of their return to his son.  

Now, why aren't you talking about the hero that was on the scene that prevented a real mass shooting.  Or does it not fit in with  your real reasons.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Pay any Taxes on Anything: I pay consumption taxes which we all have a choice of paying...don't want to pay a tax on tobacco or alcohol? Don't use them...don't want to pay a tax on gasoline? Ride a bike or walk...but the graduated income tax is unconstitutional and the SCOTUS even said as much on four different rulings INCLUDING the bogus 16th amendment that never garnered enough signatures from enough states to ratify it into their codes, acts and statutes, but nonetheless even then SCOTUS ruled that the 16th amendment did not give "da gubermint" new taxing authority. How can this corporate entity called "gubermint" sit there with a straight face and claim that their owners believe that they are entitled to a slice of our labor that we barter in exchange for debt notes that have no intrinsic value?


Have a Drivers License: : The right to travel does not require a "license". If you are engaged in commerce, a license is required, if not, the right to travel is guaranteed under the Constitution..and the SCOTUS has ruled on this as well....


Have any form of insurance:I have a bond that goes above and beyond any state requirement should I be at fault that results in the loss of property or physical damage. As an American state citizen not beholding to USA.INC does not mean that I am not liable for my actions




Have a License and Registration on your Vehicles: Why would I register my mode of transportation with the state unless I was engaged in  commercial use? According to Black's Law Dictionary under statutory code, when you "register" anything, you are turning over ownership of your property to the state and you have made a cohesion contract with them and will be allowed to use said "property" as long as you agree to abide by their acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and public policy that are subject to their whims at any time. What may be "legal" today could be deemed "illegal" tomorrow.
"And what about the Public Transportation like Roads.  Or the Public Utilities like Electrics and Natural Gas.  And more."

"Da gubermint" makes more off of a gallon of gas than the oil companies that they have controlling shares in...every town, city and county are subsidiaries of the states that are a subsidiary of USA.INC and all of them have to file a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report just like any company or corporation. Their job is to fleece the people as gently as possible.

Here is the bottom line......I know more than you because I have invested the time effort to educate myself about the nature of the cage. I opted out of the Uniform Commercial Code at a great cost because I forfeited any and all "benefits" that I had paid into since I started working full-time 37 years ago. I despise the federal "gubermint" and I will make my own way without the "safety net" that comes with strings attached in order to make me compliant and subservient to them.


Have  you any further questions? 

P.S : If your beloved masters decide that their little serfs need to be disarmed? They better wear bullet proof vests.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 25, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

All tyrants want to disarm others while being sourrounded by an arsenal themselves.

NRA member asks Alyssa Milano’s security if they’re armed at anti-gun rally. Watch the response.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> All tyrants want to disarm others while being sourrounded by an arsenal themselves.
> 
> NRA member asks Alyssa Milano’s security if they’re armed at anti-gun rally. Watch the response.



And why don't  you morons do the same thing at your own NRA Conventions.  It's a gun free zone as well with armed security guards as well.  No wonder we need to come get your guns.

Sleep well.  We are coming for your guns
Sleep well.  We are coming for your guns
In the dead of the night in a frightful sight
We are coming for your guns, we are coming for your guns


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > All tyrants want to disarm others while being sourrounded by an arsenal themselves.
> ...


Well, I have *never* been a member of the NRA so it is most certainly *not* "my NRA Convention". But that being said, I'm not aware of a _single_ NRA meeting where firearms are banned.

Now one must ask themselves why Duh-ryl here is attempting to deflect and protect astounding hypocrisy instead of calling it out? In Duh-ryl's eyes, the left can do no wrong and the right can do no right, and he will make every argument imaginable to support that.


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sleep well.  We are coming for your guns
> Sleep well.  We are coming for your guns
> In the dead of the night in a frightful sight
> We are coming for your guns, we are coming for your guns


Best of luck with that, sparky!


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sleep well.  We are coming for your guns
> Sleep well.  We are coming for your guns
> In the dead of the night in a frightful sight
> We are coming for your guns, we are coming for your guns


Duh-ryl is a fool.
Duh-ryl is a fool.
He claims he has a gun, then he says he has none
What a complete and total tool.
Duh-ryl is queer to his core.
Duh-ryl is queer to his core.
He write poetry, like flaming homo
Then he's off to troll some more.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You mean you are not aware that the National NRA Convention that happens every year is a gun free zone?  WE all can see your hypocrisy and feel the lying from you on that one.  It's what we all would expect a NRA paid shill to say.  You can collect your pay from the NRA on this one.

We are coming for your guns as you feared the most
WE can no longer trust you with a gun,you are dumber than a post
So, we are coming for your guns


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Sleep well.  We are coming for your guns
> ...



Now you gone and done it. Now the LGBT community might get involved.  And if you think the snowflakes are rough, you just wait.  Is there any group that your bigoted ass doesn't try and offend?  Well, maybe one; the KKK or any other White Supremacy group.

Hide your guns.  We are coming for your guns.  We will find your guns.  And make you watch us melt them down.  Ah, the irony of it all.


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You mean you are not aware that the National NRA Convention that happens every year is a gun free zone?  WE all can see your hypocrisy and feel the lying from you on that one.  It's what we all would expect a NRA paid shill to say.  You can collect your pay from the NRA on this one.


Well, like I said, I'm *not* (nor have I _ever_ been) a member of the NRA, so I'm not terribly knowledgeable about their day-to-day operations. I do know, however, that they protect our 2nd Amendment rights from your scared little anti-American snowflakes! And I know that pisses you off, so....

Since you can't back up anything you're saying here, I'll assume you're lying again like you usually do.


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Is there any group that your bigoted ass doesn't try and offend?


Nope! Unlike you, I'm *not* a coward and I do support the 1st Amendment!


----------



## Rustic (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


...and burn your bras, books and flags at the same time


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > You mean you are not aware that the National NRA Convention that happens every year is a gun free zone?  WE all can see your hypocrisy and feel the lying from you on that one.  It's what we all would expect a NRA paid shill to say.  You can collect your pay from the NRA on this one.
> ...



Do your own Google search.  And hide your guns.  We are coming for them.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Do your own Google search. And hide your guns. We are coming for them.


There will be no hiding.


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Do your own Google search.


Ahahahahahaha! Said _every_ dimwit who was ever caught lying.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Do your own Google search.
> ...



Hide your guns.  We are coming for them. All of them.  What's even funnier is that it's the Rednecks that are coming for them.  It seems they feel that you gun nutters are giving the rednecks a bad name.  They figure if they take care of you at least they can come out at night with honor again.  It's really bad when the Rednecks are against you.  Watch out for 4 wheel drive Pickup Trucks with loud smoking exhausts.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 8, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Hide your guns. We are coming for them. All of them. What's even funnier is that it's the *Rednecks *that are coming for them. It seems they feel that you gun nutters are giving the rednecks a bad name. They figure if they take care of you at least they can come out at night with honor again. It's really bad when the *Rednecks *are against you.* Watch out for 4 wheel drive Pickup Trucks with loud smoking exhausts.*


Are you white?


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> What's even funnier is that it's the Rednecks that are coming for them.


Not nearly as funny as your atrocious grammar, your queer poems, your idiotic claims, or getting caught in your own lies.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2018)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...

Elderly man fatally shoots armed home intruder. But hours later, an apparent drive-by retaliation.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 8, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...
> 
> Elderly man fatally shoots armed home intruder. But hours later, an apparent drive-by retaliation.


That potentially saved no less than 2 lives, maybe 3, depending.  

Thank Odin for the right to die with a weapon in hand and go to Valhalla!!!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 8, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > What's even funnier is that it's the Rednecks that are coming for them.
> ...




Get back under that bed.  Your screen will light things up enough so you can count your ammo and post your posts.  And keep hugging that AR-15.  It might keep you warm at night if you installed the new and improved heated security blanket rails.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 8, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Get back under that bed. Your screen will light things up enough so you can count your ammo and post your posts. *And keep hugging that AR-15*. It might keep you warm at night if you installed the new and improved heated security blanket rails.


Oh, I am doing WAY more than just hugging my AR15.  I am fucking it.  We're lovers.


----------



## Rustic (May 8, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Sporting rifles in action...


----------



## Doc1 (May 8, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Ok LOOK, another troll.....my we seem to be getting more than our fair share lately.


----------



## Rustic (May 8, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Some more sporting rifle education... 
disclaimer.... This one is not even close to being military grade by the way... lol


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2018)




----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



If I wanted something Match Grade,I would buy Match grade.  The 1500 bucks would be well spent.  If I wanted something that is just plain junk, I would by some piece of crap you would sell.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 8, 2018)

P@triot said:


> View attachment 192636


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2018)

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms.


> In the years following the enactment of the concealed carry law, Colorado State University—which permitted concealed firearms on campus—experienced *a 60% drop* in reported crimes.


Conservative policy always ends in positive results. Progressive policy always ends in catastrophic failure.

Concealed Carry on Campus Is More Common, and Useful, Than You Thought


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 17, 2018)

We can't let a bunch of Chinese Communist troll bots thread-bombing USMB about every university known to man suppress this jewel of a thread.  

Tip of the hat to P@triot.

TO THE TOP


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 17, 2018)

Doc1 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Ogres would be insulted to think they look nearly as ugly as you.

Put thank god they have the right to keep and bear arms to protect them from you.


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 192636



Terrorist, Criminals, Rapists and the Insane don't care if you pass a law about background checks or not.

What am I missing here?

Oh yeah, people who wouldn't use a gun to terrorize, Rape, Rob or Murder would meet Government approval!

And how exactly would that help again?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Doc1 said:
> ...



Can I interest you in a furnished Apartment under a Bridge?  It's almost lunch time.


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



As long as the maid service looks nothing like you.

But I bet you think you look adorable in that French maids outfit, right?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



And how would it hurt either?  If it doesn't hurt any of us and it stops even one bad dude then why not just do it instead of this petty BS you keep saying over and over.  What's the matter, you losing your "You can't tell me what to do" fit routine


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You don't get maid service.  You have to buy the apartment.  Trolls like you don't get maid service.


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Daryl thinks bad dudes will submit to a background check!

You can’t make this demented shit up if you tried!


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Buy or rent? You seem confused. Maybe jousting with me has put you in a tissy, huh snowflake?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



From what I can see, the bad dudes are made up of your bunch.  I don't fear the Criminals that you do.  They don't bother me and stay out of my back yard.  It's your bunch that worries me more.  I don't doubt if you thought you could get away with it you would have your little revolution to overthrow the government of the United States of America.  And you actually try to pass yourself off as a Patriot.  You are a traitor that doesn't have the never to react.


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Why?

Because you lost an argument?

12th birthday soon?

Ask for a pony


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Ah, the other resident traitor infesting this area. 

Never had a Pony.  I did have a number of Horses including one that breathed fire and brimstone.  One that I am sure your candy ass would have been ceremoniously dumped in the dirt if you tried to ride him.   He started out life on a Navajo Res.  His Father was a Government Remount Stud, his Mother was a retired Thoroughbred Racehorse.  He was raced as a 3/4 furlong race horse but he started dumping the jockeys right out of the gate.  He was sole to the RCA bucking string but started chasing cowboys after he dumped them.  I ended up with him because he liked me.  I was 12.  17 hands high, weighing in at about 1200 lbs.  And if he got cranky, he was a handful.  But he knew cows.  As big as he was, he turned on his hind legs.  He was the only big horse that could work the corrals.  One year, I took him to the county fair and entered him in the Cow Pony race.  Won it by holding him in.  A Full Thoroughbred got away from the jockey and became a runaway.  I matched the racehorse stride for stride and did a transfer of the jockey.  Now, the race horse had already run a full furlong and Jet was fresh otherwise I don't think it would have been much of a match.  They disqualified Jet from every entering the Cow Pony race.  There were only two full grown men that could ride him and that was me and my father.  Any other man would be left unseated.  But you could put a 2 year old  on him and he would babysit the 2 year old.  Now, about your Pony comment.  I spent my share of time in the Rockies riding roundups, riding fences and ditches.  I never considered myself a Cowboy. I was a Ranch Hand.  I have only known 2 real cowboys in my life.  The rest were Rexall Rangers.

Now, Traitor.  I suggest you behave yourself.  And be aware that you will NEVER have enough horsepower to take over the United States of America like you wet dream about.


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



You are a long winded loon. 

Watch out behind ya, someone’s trying to steal your tin foil hat


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I have led a rich full life with many challenges and occupations.  I am looking for my next challenge.  I don't know what it will be but it will probably be in helping those people that you and scum like you insult because they have so little and have not much in opportunity to enrich themselves with.  I don't expect you to understand that since you have led such a boring life and have accomplished so little.  I guess your dream of conquering the United States of America is about the only dream you have, traitor.


----------



## Pop23 (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Do tell


----------



## Rustic (May 17, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


...and you desire to control people you disagree with, obviously.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You just can't stand it that you can't control me.  Well, put on that 'luminum hat and cry in corner.  It's good for your soul.  If you can't find your soul, you can find one at your neighborhood Soul Shop.  They come cheap these days.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Why would I want to control you?

You make my point for me daily. I need far less effort then if you had never shown up Daryl.

If I haven't yet done so, then I will do so now and publicly thank you for making most of my points for me.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



The only point you have is that you have publicaly announced that you want an armed revolution against the United States of America.  And you are willing to shout down anyone that apposes that idea.  Well, if apposing you for that idea is called control, then we need more of it.  While others have the right to own guns, I suspect you would fail a mental test as to whether you should be allowed to have them or not.  No wonder many of the ultra right wing appose allowing judges to rule that some of the violent and mentally ill people not have guns at their disposal.  People like you would be stripped of their guns for the the safety of everyone else.  Ah, the NRA at work.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Supply the quote stating such, if you can't, which you can't because it was never made, you just proved my point that you do my work for me.

How's it feel to be my Bitch Daryl?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You expect me to go through your thousands of anti American posts to find just one?  Tell you what.  Just take it on the chin and move on.  The other readers remember it.  You just keep lying.  I don't feel the need to prove you wrong once more.  Why that would be  a full time job.  I realize that you are paid to post this nonsense by the NRA.  I am not paid and don't have the time nor the will to do so.  

The fact remains you are an UnAmerican Traitor that wishes to overthrown the Government and replace it with whatever sick bunch of puppies you have in mind.  And if someone would put together a bunch of thugs you felt were strong enough to do just that you would take up arms with them.  You have stated that pretty much already.  I wished we could give all you sick puppies a small area in the middle of a dessert to setup your new government and put all of you there.  Bet that would be entertaining.  Then we could watch on TV as all of you slowly broke into small groups and started killing each other.

There is another area that works that way.  It's called the Middle East.  And it's been happening ever since the two sons of Abraham had a falling out after their Fathers passing away.  They've been killing each other ever since.  Nice bunch of folks to be compared with.  Hope you are proud of yourself, Achmed.


----------



## Rustic (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
I don’t care to control anyone else... I’m not a progressive.
Obviously you are.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



No, you are just a Nutcase who works for the NRA


----------



## Rustic (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
Nice misinterpretation, Daryl needs to be educated.


----------



## Rustic (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Na,
the NRA is not pro gun enough, America needs to be better armed.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...





Daryl Hunt said:


> You expect me to go through your thousands of anti American posts to find just one? Tell you what. Just take it on the chin and move on. The other readers remember it. You just keep lying. I don't feel the need to prove you wrong once more. Why that would be a full time job. I realize that you are paid to post this nonsense by the NRA. I am not paid and don't have the time nor the will to do so.



I would expect nothing less if you had even a tenth of the Courage of Conviction you say you do.

You say you caught someone actively plotting the overthrow of a legally sitting Government, and you don't make the effort to, at a minimum back up your words with a single quote of me saying what you say I made?

You have accused me of one of, if not the greatest crimes on the books and you can't back that up Daryl?

You claim to have this incredibly well rounded life and plenty of time and resources. You claim to be this great Patriot, yet you make the claim I am plotting the overthrow of our Government and can't do a search of posts to provide any evidence for what you claim? Not very Patriotic if you ask me.

There is a group looking to overthrow the sitting government, and it isn't those of us that kind of like the ability of the weak to defend themselves against the strong, it is a group called Antifa and their supporters. Maybe you can do the nation a great service and infiltrate them.

I await the quotes you say I made.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Rustic (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Don’t mind Daryl, he’s obviously a delusional control freak... all progressives are.
He’s one of those guys that sit in the corner/off by themselves talking to themselves in public places.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



But if I did commit this heinous act, should I not be punished? Daryl could supply that evidence to bring me to justice, couldn't he?

I mean, I do drinks a bit, but even in my most excessive state of disorientation, I'm thinking I could. After all, the security of the greatest nation is at stake. And that is far more important than enjoying another PBR (and I do so enjoy that rich flavor of an ice cold PBR).

What am I missing here?


----------



## Rustic (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Daryl is insane???
...And pees his pants every time he sees an Ar15.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I think Daryl is indisposed at the moment. I can here him yelling at his computer screen:

*"DAMMIT, I KNOW HE'S MADE THOSE COMMENTS, WHY CAN'T I FIND ONE, JUST ONE!*"


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Well, at least you don't deny you are a NRA paid shill.  But I know you will.  You seem to lie about everything else.  Now, get that tin foiled hat on and try and educate me, there Achmed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I arm up when I see one or your kind strutting down the street with yours.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Not just Delusional, but Paranoid as well. Such an attractive portrait you paint of your life.

The postman is your friend Daryl, don't shoot him because you think he might be on my side, OK?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



When the Postman finds the need to start packing because of you gun nutz then it's time to get you out of the neighborhood.  

Now, go back and report to your NRA employer that your mission failed once again.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



You have just as much proof I am an NRA employee, or for that matter an NRA member as you have of me making treasonous posts. Exactly NONE fool, which make you, from this moment on, MY BITCH.

Now run along and get your Master a sammie!


----------



## Rustic (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Your reference to Abraham and his two sons and their supposed “falling out” are that of politically correct pussy... a total lack of understanding of what really happened there. Get along is way overrated... snowflake


----------



## Dan Stubbs (May 18, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


*Never fear, somewhere someplace, someone who is a nut job is going to see about a school shooting and will try to get his claim to fame.  This is brought on by the Media coverage.  Mental people are all on the ground who are going to take it as a go sign from God or some other reason for attacking other people.  These people take the lead from the Media.  This sounds simple but it is true. *


----------



## Dan Stubbs (May 18, 2018)

SuperDemocrat said:


> The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?


*You could not afford the cost of the purchase or the fuel to run a tank, let alone the 1500.00 for a RPG.   *


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, cupcake.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



No, I tell ya what big fella.

You run along and get that post you claim I made that was treasonous and post it right here.

I might just start a poll on if what I posted really was treason, or if you are just a paranoid flake.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Now look who is trying to control in here.  Your stripes are showing.  You know, the one white one down the your back.  Please stop smelling up America.

As for me running along.  No, cupcake.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



So you admit you lied.

Got it, and to much a weenie to admit it as well.

Why am I not surprised Daryl?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



There is a name for what you constently do.  Now, why would I admit to lying when I didn't lie.  So you just lie about me lying and then declare a victory.  

Well, Cupcake, I am still here and will be here forever and we all know that forever is well.......Forever.  Get used to it, Traitor.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



You claimed I did this:



Daryl Hunt said:


> The only point you have is that you have publicaly announced that you want an armed revolution against the United States of America.



This would equate to me committing a treasonous act, and that I did so publicly.

You've been called out to prove I actually said this, something that, upon being found guilty, can earn a death sentence.

AND YOU WON'T PROVIDE PROOF?

Lame Daryl, so very lame.


----------



## regent (May 18, 2018)

Is it just guns that Americans love or do they feel the same fond affection  for other explosives such as hand grenades, land mines and so forth?


----------



## 2aguy (May 18, 2018)

regent said:


> Is it just guns that Americans love or do they feel the same fond affection  for other explosives such as hand grenades, land mines and so forth?




No...they love freedom and they realize that the only way to secure freedom is to keep governments in check..and the only way to do that is to keep the people armed....you could ask the 12 million Europeans murdered in German socialist death camps about this, but they didn't have guns....and they were murdered by their governments.


----------



## bodecea (May 18, 2018)

Which god do we thank for today?


----------



## 2aguy (May 18, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Which god do we thank for today?




The one that gives you, and the other anti gunners  power when children are killed......


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You have said that you support treasonous acts.  That makes you as guilty as if you actually did them.  You support the vilent overthrow of the Government of the United States of America by your own posts.  But no one has acted on your suggestions.  So no crime has occurred.  

BTW, thanks for the new school shooting in Texas.  It's all on you and yours.  Your employer, the NRA should be proud.


----------



## 2aguy (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




The shooter was a left wing nutter who liked satanism.....likely he voted democrat.  The NRA fights against the democrats as the democrats keep releasing violent gun criminals out of prison....


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



He is 17 years old and can't vote yet.  He was going for the record but had a poor choice of weapons.  There were enough things tha tp;ointed to it before hand that it could have been avoided.  But you Republicans won't allow a law to pass that will allow judges to not allow the mentally ill or the Violent People weapons possesion until after the crime.  Thej Colorado House passed a bill to that affect and then the REpublican SEnate turned it down.  This shooting goes to all you gun crazies.  How many more will happen before you will step up to the plate.


----------



## 2aguy (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




No...that would be the ACLU you twit.....the democrats keep lying and passing bills that take guns from law abiding people, if they would just try to do the right thing and work at keeping guns away from the truly dangerous they would be trusted more.

We have stepped up to the plate, we want armed and trained staff and an end to these insane democrat gun free zones...we know that these shooters run away as soon as someone points a gun at them...as happened here and at Parkland and everywhere else.....you guys hate guns, so you don't actually care about solving the problem


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Lies, I posted your direct quote. 

You are not simply a lier, but completely discredited. 

And my bitch


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Oh, really.
"Red flag" gun bill in Colorado would allow gun seizure from those who pose "significant risk"
Republicans defeat gun bill, respond with support for mental health measures
The bill was pass by the House.  It was turned down by a 3-2 in a Senate Panel which killed it.  The Senate is Republican Controlled and the vote was 3 Republicans V 2 Democrats.  

Knowing that the Texas Shooter had all kinds of warning signals, it's sickening to hear the Governor of Texas go into saying that there were no warning signals.  He posted his Born to Kill T-shirt on his Pages.  He wore a long Rain Coat even on hot dry days.  There were more.  Then to hear the Governor of Texas (R) go into his BS about no warning signals.  And all that bomb making in his room and his parents being totally oblivious to any of it in something as small as a small double wide.  

This should have been stopped long before it happened but you gun nutz all are worried about your "Rights" and it costs another 10 more School Children lives.  I would ask how it feels to be responsible but you won't accept the responsibility.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 18, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You made a threat.  You don't have the nerve to follow through it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



What threat was that EXACTLY Daryl?

Do tell us all, won’t you

Quote the Post Daryl. 

You can’t, can you. 

And we all know why, don’t we Daryl

Because you lied about the most serious crime a citizen can make against his country. 

That make you nothing but a flea on my dogs ass. 

And I hate to insult fleas like that.


----------



## P@triot (May 19, 2018)

As is _always_ the case, the left has been caught in a web of lies. As is _always_ the case, a firearm wasn’t the problem. As is _always_ the case, it was left-wing policy that lead to the deaths of children.


> “It was so many things. I had three students bring knives to my classroom. One was out of the classroom for one day. Another had so many things on his record, he was gone for five days. None were expelled,” Mary Fitzgerald, who taught in the district for 37 years, said. “My principal basically would tell me it was his job to market the school. He was adamant *about not looking bad*.”


That sums up the left nicely. More concerned about appearance and P.R. than protecting children and effective policy.

Florida newspaper exposes Broward County School system’s incompetence with blockbuster new story


----------



## P@triot (May 19, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Can I interest you in a furnished Apartment under a Bridge?  It's almost lunch time.


Once again we seen Duh-ryl panhandling for food. Typical progressive.


----------



## Pop23 (May 19, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Can I interest you in a furnished Apartment under a Bridge?  It's almost lunch time.
> ...



He'd lie about the apartment anyway. He's a confirmed liar after all.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Where is that poll you threatened me with.  You don't have the guts, cupcake.


----------



## bodecea (May 19, 2018)

2aguy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Which god do we thank for today?
> ...


I'm not anti-gun....that's why I'm asking.  Don't want to be thanking the wrong god for yesterday.


----------



## bodecea (May 19, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No he wasn't...but we all saw how your alt-right homies tried to photoshop pics from the shooter's Facebook page to make us think that.


----------



## 2aguy (May 19, 2018)

bodecea said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




I'm not alt-right, but you are definitely a left wing extremist...... you and your asshole buddies throughout history have the blood of about 200 million people on your hands...


----------



## Pop23 (May 19, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Where is that quote you threatened me with Dime Store Patriot. You don’t have the guts to post it, huh buttercup?

Here is an excellent article as to what constitutes Treason and why morons like you should not use the term lightly. 

Enjoy

Opinion | Steve Vladeck: America's overuse of 'treason' has reached alarming levels


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Preaching for the Violent overthrow of the Government certainly falls well within the Treasonous Acts.  You don't have to actually do it, you just have to preach it and you have done so numerous times in the past.  You support your Thug "Militias" that is exactly what they are formed to do.  You have supported the Bundy's in the past as well.  Why they haven't bagged them as traitors is beyond me.  Taking over Federal Lands with Lethal Weapons is well within the definition of a Traitorous act.  But I have more respect for the Bundy's than I do for you.  They have the guts to act on their convictions no matter how misplaced they may be and are willing to take it on the chin.  Gutless wonders like you only makes them believe they will get wholesale support when, in fact, they won't.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 19, 2018)

2aguy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You got caught with your pants down.  The kid is 17 years old and not a member of either party.  He's a sick puppy.  Simple as that.  Going to extremes to use faked information to make a point one way or another is just stupid and should be pointed out as such.

Trust me, you are an ultra right wingnut if that is what you are defending.


----------



## Pop23 (May 19, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Yawn, nobody believes a liar.

Go get the quote that I advocated Overthrowing “the government”

You’re boring me kid.

Google “2nd Amendment and tyranny”

Look at all the web sites that come up.

Then get on the phone to the DOJ. A Patriot like you better get to reporting all that Treason going on out there!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You wait and deny it every so often until it's proven over and over again.  I don't feel the need to go digging up your old messages anymore.  Enough people have seen them.  You just denying them all you wish.  The more you deny them them more you are proven a liar and a traitor.  You are just one step away from being a terrorist.


----------



## Pop23 (May 19, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



To prove an assertion one normally supply evidence

You can’t huh?

You said everyone saw it

But you just can’t find it?

Why? When it’s so obvious?

Daryl, doubling down on stupid, makes you look double stupid.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The evidence has already been presented. You presented it yourself.  You can deny, deny and deny more.  It only proves that if you say a lie enough times that you honestly start to believe it yourself, it's still a lie.  Now, go play with your gun.  I have better things to do than listen to your traitorous ass.


----------



## Pop23 (May 19, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Daryl, seriously, nobody cares what you claim if you can’t back it up. 

You keep claiming I made traitorous statements. 

Unless you lack honor, you’d back it up. 

Your yellow spine is showing

And that is what everyone see’s

Worthless claims are just that, worthless.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 21, 2018)

Thank God for free speech.  It reveals so much.

*"Repeal it and give Congress unlimited power over regulating guns, including banning them"*
Vote Cast -- Daryl Hunt


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 21, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Thank God for free speech.  It reveals so much.
> 
> *"Repeal it and give Congress unlimited power over regulating guns, including banning them"*
> Vote Cast -- Daryl Hunt



USing a strawman method is still lying.  I didn't cast that vote that way.     You sure are deperate to win, aren't you.  So deseperate that you just lost.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 21, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for free speech.  It reveals so much.
> ...


What would you do with the second amendment?

2 People voted for "*Repeal it and give Congress unlimited power over regulating guns, including banning them"* and you were one of them.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 21, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



And you know this how, Sherlock?  Tell us how you know considering the polls are supposed to be anon.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 21, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Because they weren't anonymous.  Go click and see your name.


You tried to lie.  You pretend that you are some "sensible" gun advocate, but you're really a fucking liar.  You are a commie wanting a total ban.  You're busted!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 21, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



So I clicked on the 2nd one instead of the 3rd one where it gives the states the rights.  I notice that you left off the ability to change the vote in hopes to fool someone into mis casting the vote so you could do this stupidity.

I don't have time for you.  Now go play with the other morons with the gun flavored lollypops.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 21, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


1. Not my thread

2.  You are lying, gun-ban commie.

3.  Fuck off, commie


----------



## Pop23 (May 21, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Quote where I preached for the violent overthrow of our government fool. 

Sorry bubba, you look an idiot.


----------



## P@triot (May 21, 2018)

Thank God for our constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms...

Dad holding baby daughter attacked by four men. But Dad grabs his gun — and the tables turn.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

The left-wing ideology continues to completely implode before our eyes. Here is yet _another_ mass shooting prevented by an armed citizen. So much for the left-wing *lie* that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings! Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms.

Man opens fire inside Oklahoma City restaurant, before being killed by an armed citizen


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The left-wing ideology continues to completely implode before our eyes. Here is yet _another_ mass shooting prevented by an armed citizen. So much for the left-wing *lie* that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings! Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Man opens fire inside Oklahoma City restaurant, before being killed by an armed citizen



Now for the real story.
Oklahoma City shooting: Armed bystanders kill restaurant shooter

“I don’t think he had any intention of dropping the weapon,” Chilling account of the Lake Hefner shooting

The shooter had already left the building after shooting two people in the resturant.  He was confronted by two armed people outside of the building.  He was told to drop his weapon.  He refused and was shot and killed.  Outside of the building there were no other people that were in jeapordy from errant bullets like it would have been inside of the building where there were a large group of people. 

The shooter went in the building, did the shooting, quickly exited and tried to leave the parking lot and was confronted by two people who were well concealed.  Neither had a CCW so they had to get their weapons from their cars.  The two citizens did nothing illegal.  Oklahoma does not have a Non Licensed CCW Law but it's fairly easy to get a license for a CCW.  I agree with that law.  Had shots been fired by the good samaritians in the crowded building there is a good chance errant shots would have hurt civilians in friendly fire.  And we all know there is no such thing as friendly fire.  By pure luck, things worked out like it did. 

BTW, normally, the shooters are stopped by the cops and not citizens.  Either on duty or off duty cops do the shooting.  This is a very, very rare occurance.  The "Yet Again" is very misleading.  The NRA is trying to use this to shame the Oklahoma Governor into not vetoing the next time a law that enables non CCW to come across his desk like it did last week.  And the Gun Nutz want us to believe this is a normal ocurrance.  It's not even close.  In fact, it was handled exactly like a Cop would have handled it by an untrained Citizen.  I hope you know just how rare that type of situation is when even the Cops may not even have handled it as well.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The left-wing ideology continues to completely implode before our eyes. Here is yet _another_ mass shooting prevented by an armed citizen. So much for the left-wing *lie* that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings! Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms.
> ...


Cry, bitch.

This should happen everyday until motherfuckers stop doing this shit.  

Arm yourself or you can die, motherfucker.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



The very law that is in affect in Oklahoma that prevented untrained armed citizens from roaming the streets with weapons prevented innocent civilians from being killed by errant rounds.  For as big as a pest hole as Oklahoma is, at least they did one thing right.  And the system worked.  It was pure luck it ended like it did.

It appears that it's you that is crying on this one.  All the other times it's either been an on duty or off duty cop or a trained Security Guard (cop) either on duty or off duty that has stopped the shooter.  I notice no one has looked real deep into the back ground of the two guys that took up arms from their trunks.  Wanna bet there is more to this story than meets the eye?  I know what it takes to get a CCW.  It makes you think more than twice before you pull your weapon.  A Person without that training will more than likely just pull it and play rambo and innocents will get killed in the process.  Pushing the "All Citizens should be Armed and not Trained" really doesn't make your "Cause" look so good.  And it's directly being supported by the NRA who is there to sell more guns.  Imagine if a bunch of Rambos drew weapons in that building and started shooting away.  Instead of 2 being wounded and a couple being harmed there would have been a body count of at least 4 or 5.  The shooter knew he had to exit fast as the Cops would be there in seconds.  He knew he had to try and blend in to make his escape.  He just never got the chance.  This was well thought out on his case.  He just wanted to shoot someone.  Nothing personal.  Due to State Laws that no citizen could be armed in that Diner without a CCW License, he popped off  a few rounds, hitting two, leaves the building where he is confronted by two legally armed citizens who handled it exactly like cops would have.  There is more than meets the eye to this one.

And you think I am crying?  Hell, kid, I am damned proud of all of the Citizens and the Governor of Oklahoma.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> This is a very, very rare *occurance*.


But not nearly as rare an *occurrence* as proper grammar and spelling by your dumb ass... 

(Pst...there is no "a" in occurrence and there are TWO "r's" - not one)


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The left-wing ideology continues to completely implode before our eyes. Here is yet _another_ mass shooting prevented by an armed citizen. So much for the left-wing *lie* that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings! Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms.
> ...


Ahahahah! First progressives go with the false narrative that this "never happens". And now they are going with the false narrative "this is a rare occurrence".

It is *not* a "rare" occurrence, snowflake. It happens many dozens of times per year in the U.S. for decades.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> By pure luck, things worked out like it did.


Isn't amazing how there is "pure luck" _everywhere_ there are armed citizens?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > This is a very, very rare *occurance*.
> ...



When you traitors run out of everything else, you resort to trying to running down the other person.  Works for me, Achmed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > By pure luck, things worked out like it did.
> ...



So far, there hasn't been any of those times you keep referring to.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> So far, there hasn't been any of those times you keep referring to.


Happens almost once a week in this country, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> When you traitors run out of everything else, you resort to *trying to running down* the other person.


More top-notch grammar from the board retard. 

It’s painfully clear why you are a progressive parasite.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > So far, there hasn't been any of those times you keep referring to.
> ...



yet only one has been reported.  Seems to me that if there were more they would be yelled from the steeple tops.  Looks to me like you are lying once again.  Your NRA is giving false information and you are just repeating it.  We ain't buying what you are peddling.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > When you traitors run out of everything else, you resort to *trying to running down* the other person.
> ...



And it's obvious that you really don't have a message other than "Buy more guns".


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And it's obvious that you really don't have a message other than "Buy more guns".


I’m not a fascist like you. I would never tell anyone what to buy or what not to buy. My only “message” is “not upholding the U.S. Constitution is not acceptable”.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > By pure luck, things worked out like it did.
> ...



Just pure luck once.  Everywhere would be where it happens in more than one sport more than one time.  It isn't happening in more than one spot and more than one time.  You are just saying over and over, "Buy More Guns".  Nothing more.  Your message is lost.  We ain't buying what you are selling, Achmed.  We deserve better than the Middle East.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Uh...they are reported weekly. I’ve added them to this thread. The media refuses to cover them because they *weren’t* a mass shooting. They aren’t interested in a firearm protects citizens story. They are interested in carnage stories for ratings and to push their agenda.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> We deserve better than the Middle East.


Yes we do. Which is why the American people showed you Dumbocrats the door.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And it's obvious that you really don't have a message other than "Buy more guns".
> ...



You mean the way you demand it be upheld.  Not necessarily the way that it really is to most other people including the Supreme Court and Most states.  In the end, the only message you end up screaming is the one your masters, the NRA tells you to yell is, Buy More Guns.  The answer to that is, we don't have to if we don't want to.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You mean the way you demand it be upheld.


Exactly. Which is _exactly_ as it is written. Nothing less. Nothing more.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You don't add a thing except for this one thing.  You do add where it's done by on duty cops, off duty cops, security Cops but this is the first time that it has been by private citizens.  Your message is clear, you are lying out your ass.  The majority of the Population does not feel the need to buy more guns.  You might but the bulk of us don't feel that need.  We aren't falling for your message that we need to live in fear of our lives and of our loved ones.  We are doing just fine.  We are looking for solutions and buying more guns will just add to the problem not become the solution.  You want to hide under your bed stroking your AR, go ahead.  Maybe it will keep you off the street and make it safer for the rest of us.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> the NRA tells you to yell is, Buy More Guns.  The answer to that is, we don't have to if we don't want to.


We the People understand that you anti-American welfare queens would rather spend your stipend on drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. We don’t expect you to purchase firearms (frankly we’re happy that you stoned people don’t).


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> We are looking for solutions and buying more guns will just add to the problem not become the solution.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The left-wing ideology continues to completely implode before our eyes. Here is yet _another_ mass shooting prevented by an armed citizen. So much for the left-wing *lie* that armed citizens never prevent mass shootings! Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms.
> ...


Even CNN admits what you continue to *lie* about...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the way you demand it be upheld.
> ...



Once again, let's look at the 2nd amendment.

_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_

As of the National Guard Act of 1917 this became outdated.  it needs to be stricken or rewritten.  Therefore, the 2nd amendment is no longer valid.  

_*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_

Why was this written?  The FFs wanted to make sure that no Federal Government could ever do what the King did to them.   If the firearms were taken, they could not put meat on the table or protect themselves from various bandits or marauding Indians.  There were no real police forces to protect the citizens.  As a group, they had to do it themselves.  They, were in effect, the Militia or Police Force.  The King tried to take the firearms from them to prevent them from having them in case of a Revolution.  What he did was to bring on the very thing he feared.  

Using that logic today, is anyone really trying to take your firearms?  They aren't mine.  Maybe you are a special case but mine are doing just fine and so are almost every other person that owns firearms.  We are not detrimental to Society in any way.  There is no reason to take those weapons from our homes.  The Weapons in our homes are except from any and all laws as long as they aren't under FFL licensing and even then, we can get a FFL to have them in our homes, transport them, use them on a range, hunt with them.  They aren't coming for my guns and never have been.  If they are yours, I suggest we take a close look at whether you should have them in the first place.

Let's say you want them just in case a Tyrannical Government were ever to take over the United States of America.  It's already been shown that really can't happen.  But let's say it does.  And the full force of the US Military comes down on you.  Again, it's been shown that will never happen.  But, let's just say it can happen.  What chance will you and your bunch of AR-15s have against the US Military Might and the really cool toys they have to play with?  How about ZERO.  That part of what you think is the 2nd amendment is no longer valid.

Now on to the next batch.  There is a reason that the Full Autos were moved to the FFL in the first place.  Criminals ended up with them and they were spraying all over the place.  If it were just criminals killing each other it would have been no big thing.  And most of the intended targets were other Criminals.  But there were more Civilians being killed than criminals.  So they moved them to the FFL, confiscated them when they found them, made it where only those with FFL could purchase them either new or used and over about a 10 year period, they disappeared from the Criminals bag of tricks.  When the Criminals broke one or lost one for whatever reason, their were no replacement parts for the Thompsons or replacement Thompsons to be had unless you had a FFL license.  They didn't ban them.  They regulated them  in 1934.  And that still stands today.  When one weapons is the primary weapon that is used for mass shooting (not 1 or 2 or even 7 body counts) then the community has the right to regulate that weapon.  Hence the court rulings on the AR-15.  They aren't banned.  They are regulated.  If you want to obtain a FFL license in those areas, I am sure that you will find an exemption for your AR.  

That all means the 2nd part of the 2nd Amendment is just too broad a statement for todays world.  I don't mean to say we need to get rid of it but we do need to update it.  Otherwise, this horseshit argument will go on and one between the two factions of; "We need to Ban all Guns" and "They are trying to take all my Guns".  And it's just plain horseshit on both sides.  What's worse, the rest of us have to listen to the horseshit.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



And that's the only one.  You can't keep repeating the same one over and over and say that it's happened MANY times.  And when you look at this particular situation, there were some laws in Oklahoma that kept the Civilians safer by NOT allowing non CCW shooters to be armed inside of the Diner.  This was a very good case to not allow non CCW on the streets and in the public buildings.  Thank you for bringing that up.  The NRA is pissed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > the NRA tells you to yell is, Buy More Guns.  The answer to that is, we don't have to if we don't want to.
> ...



I think that I would rather have them buying drugs than guns.  At least they will be killing themselves instead of others.  In that case, drugs are far safer.  I have yet to year of someone coming into a school and doing a mass shooting with Grass.  Maybe a mass stoning, but not a mass shooting.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > We deserve better than the Middle East.
> ...



How do you know I a democrat?  I guess, to you, anyone short of a potential homicidal axe murderer must be a democrat.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And it's obvious that you really don't have a message other than "Buy more guns".
> ...



As you read it.  Not all interpret it as you do.  And it IS up to interpretation.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many damned many Lawyers, now would there.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> That all means the 2nd part of the 2nd Amendment is just too broad a statement for todays world.


If that’s true, the onus is on the American people to legally and properly amend it. No such action has occurred. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is still law as written.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I guess, to you, anyone short of a potential homicidal axe murderer must be a democrat.


Short of? Dumbocrats are mostly made up of homicidal maniacs. Who engages in violence in the streets? Dumbocrats. Who makes up the majority of our prison population? Dumbocrats.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And it IS up to interpretation.


Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution grant _any_ governing body the right to “interpret” the U.S. Constitution itself. Sorry, snowflake.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I guess, to you, anyone short of a potential homicidal axe murderer must be a democrat.
> ...



Funny, the ones around here are all Republican.  Guess it's because this is a solid Red Area.  Guess we need to import some Blue Criminals to offset it because you say we must.  And the biggest criminals around here are all in Public Office and they are all Republicans.  Guess they just don't like competition.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And it IS up to interpretation.
> ...



Just like a fascist.   You are trying to put all those lawyers out of work.  What's next, you going to use the 2B Immigration to replace them?  Hate to break it to you, cupcake, if it weren't up to interpretation then we wouldn't be having this discussion and the Supreme Court would be agreeing with you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > That all means the 2nd part of the 2nd Amendment is just too broad a statement for todays world.
> ...



As interpreted by YOU.  I don't see you sitting in any Public Office or on any Court Bench?  When I do then I might listen to the way you interpret it.  But I doubt that will happen, cupcake.


----------



## AmericanTruther (May 26, 2018)

Good, because we have a Weak Whyte Racist problem that needa to be taking care of!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 26, 2018)

AmericanTruther said:


> Good, because we have a Weak Whyte Racist problem that needa to be taking care of!


No, we have an unwitting, control-freak, statist, authoritarian, goose-stepping communist problem, where most of the pajama-boy commies don't even know that their collectivist bullshit came straight out of Marx's asshole and that it will lead to their subjugation and enslavement.  

The History of American Marxist Progression:
Communists-->Socialists-->Progressives-->Socialists-->Liberals-->Progressives-->Democratic Socialists

I am sure the commies changed their stripes a few more times, but you get the idea.

The "White Racist" claim is an attempt to shame and discredit any opposition to the commie borg by shutting down the discussion or real exchange of ideas.  Cries of racism are the tools of cowards who cannot win on the battlefield of ideas, which communism/socialism/Marxism/collectivism cannot.  History is littered with examples of its complete failure, going all the way back to William Bradford.

The only way commie bullshit can survive is if it has no competition. That is why it is not good enough to leave America alone.  America competes against, and completely destroys the communist ideal.  

The reason commie bullshit cannot compete is because it ignores the power and indispensability of human nature.  Capitalism harnesses it.  

The whole point of society is to benefit the individual.  Under commie rule there is no individual.  They say "this belongs to The People" which really means it belongs to no one but the rulers.   This is "the business of The People" which means it is not the business of people, but the rulers.

In essence, under commie bullshit rule, the individual is deprived of the benefits of society, and is better off fighting and dying for freedom.  The individual will always be at war with the collective.  Thus, the individual looks for escape to a place where society still provides those benefits.  America still (somewhat) serves the interest of the individual.  It competes agaist the collectivist commie bullshit.

So, how do the commie useful idiots take out the only competition?  There must be no means of individuals resisting the borg.  The people must be subjects, not citizens.  The people must have no recourse.  

Thus, guns must go.  It is never about public safety.  

So, take your "White Racist" bullshit nonargument copout and shove it right up your goose-stepping ass.

We're not banning any guns or give in on any new regulations or restrictions.  We are repealing and are willing to die shooting commies to get there.

Complete repeal or Valhalla, bitches!!!


----------



## sparky (May 26, 2018)




----------



## ChrisL (May 26, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> AmericanTruther said:
> 
> 
> > Good, because we have a Weak Whyte Racist problem that needa to be taking care of!
> ...



Bam!  Awesome post!


----------



## ChrisL (May 26, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> AmericanTruther said:
> 
> 
> > Good, because we have a Weak Whyte Racist problem that needa to be taking care of!
> ...



I was going to lecture you about responding to that retard, but then I read your post and I was like hell YEAH!


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Hate to break it to you, cupcake, if it weren't up to interpretation then we wouldn't be having this discussion and the Supreme Court would be agreeing with you.


Hate to break it to _you_, snowflake, but we are having this conversation because Dumbocrats break the law when they don’t get their way. You people can’t accept the fact that *We the People* have spoken so you just lie about the U.S. Constitution and then violate it.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


“Just like a facist” to obey the *law* created by the *people*?


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Uh....no snowflake. As written in the U.S. Constitution.  The highest *law* in the land.

Like all fascists, you’re pissed off that you can’t get the votes you want to control the people. You can’t accept the fact that *We the People* have spoken.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> AmericanTruther said:
> 
> 
> > Good, because we have a Weak Whyte Racist problem that needa to be taking care of!
> ...



Will you hurry up and die like you promised you would?  Vahalla is calling.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



As interpreted by you.  You know, the one without the law degree nor the political science degree.  You making policy for everyone else is about as dumb as a screen door in a submarine.  You the People is just you.  Not the rest of us.  Sort of like all the other "Most" you keep bringing up, cupcake.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I obey all the laws created by the people. Unlike you that you only want to obey the ones that you agree with, cupcake.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanTruther said:
> ...


I can’t unless I try to make sure you join me.  Don’t you know the rules?

Vahalla, Daryl might be coming.



You’re getting pretty close to Vahalla anyway, right, granny?  Better keep a weapon in your hand at all times.  It could be any moment.


Daryl has an immediate physical and religious interest in open carry.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You making policy for everyone else is about as dumb as a screen door in a submarine.


“Making policy” 

Duh-ryl is so stupid, he doesn’t understand the difference between accepting existing law and creating “policy”.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I obey all the laws created by the people.


No you don’t. You’re openly stating here that the 2nd Amendment “isn’t modern” and you advocated hundreds of times violating it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I obey all the laws created by the people.
> ...



I don't just advocate it.  According to the Supreme Court, it's outdated.  This is why they rule like they do.  The problem is, the do nothing "NRA Purchased" Congress won't step up to the plate.  And the Supreme Court keeps making the rulings they keep making.  As long as the NRA is more interested in selling more guns and ammo than what is best of America and they keep purchasing our Politicos, this will continue as it is.  And the only thing standing in their way is the Supreme Court.  Even the Right Leaning Supreme Court rules against them all the time.  I know you can't see it that way because it's against your "Buy More Guns" mentality but that's the way it is.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > You making policy for everyone else is about as dumb as a screen door in a submarine.
> ...



I understand that you are interpreting the 2nd amendment different than the Supreme Court.  I interpret it as the Supreme Court rules it.  Since Congress can't get off their NRA paid for asses and fix it then the only thing we have to go by is the Supreme Court ruling.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


The only fixing needed from Congress is to repeal all the bullshit.

This problem presists because for years too many irresponsible, lazy, child-like people have traded in their liberty and put the responsibility of their own security on others, mainly those who are never timely available.

I guess it fits the communist proletariat mentality of being a ward of the state.   

Those who are unwilling to arm themselves, or to directly pay other individuals to personally do it, should expect no protection or rights.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



When you trade your own selfish wishes and wants for the security and safety of the public then we will end up with what you demand.  You seem to toss the term communism around freely.  Most Democratic countries have gun regulations much tighter than we have here.  And they have lower gun crimes than we have as well.  If you hate this country shis much, why don't you leave.


----------



## Rustic (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
Why would you care about someone else’s personal firearm ownership?
There are most likely 400+ million legally owned firearms in this country, What percentage of those used in violent crime a fraction, of a fraction of a percent tops?
You are not the moral Authority on personal firearm ownership… No one is. So shut the fuck up


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> When you trade your own selfish wishes and wants for the security and safety of the public then we will end up with what you demand.


When you and all the wet blankets like you trade in your own selfish, yet naive wishes to disarm everybody so you can FEEL safe, and decide that you are responsible for your own security (like a responsible adult) the public part will take care of itself.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> According to the Supreme Court, it's outdated.


They’ve made no such declaration, snowflake. And even if they had, so what? It’s not their call to make. The American people decide if if is “outdated”. And so far, *We the People* feel is I still more timely and appropriate than _ever_.

You fascists are just going to have to figure out how to deal with that. You’re fighting a war you can’t possibly win.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > When you trade your own selfish wishes and wants for the security and safety of the public then we will end up with what you demand.
> ...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



As long as it's to the best interest of the safety of the public.  And that is the bottom line.  It's up to the State, County and Township to make that determination on what is the best interest or safety of the public.  Personally, I like the way it is where I am therefore I stay here.  If you don't like it where you are, move to somewhere that you like better.  Simple as that.  I don't believe I could care to live in the stifling NY State but I find the Texas is a bit loose for my tastes.  There IS a happy medium that has enough controls to protect the citizen, has enough law enforcement and enough leeway for the Citizen.  We aren't having a huge discussion here since we seem to have found that happy medium.  And this is a deep Red area.  

I AM a moral authority for the area I live in.  And so is every other person that lives here.  We don't need your kind screwing things up for the rest of us.  We like it the way it is.  And we don't need the NRA to keep dumping their millions in lawsuits like they keep doing.  So far, they haven't won a single case.  They did win one special election but in the next election that was corrected.  We like balance.  Yes, even a deep Red area likes things balanced where we have just enough regulations to do the job and enough freedom to do what we like to do.  

About me Shutting the F Up, No.  And it's my right not to shut up.  Get over it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



So, anyone that agrees with you are "We the People" and anyone that doesn't fall completely in lockstep isn't.  Wow, that's pretty narrow minded.  The only people I want to see disarmed are the sick puppies that are detrimental to the health of the American People.  If you fit that bill, then so be it.  Please check yourself in the nearest booby hatch.


----------



## Rustic (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
Well, the areas that would be the most affected by fucked upped frivolous federal gun control laws are the areas where there is no Significant firearm violence.
Why should people that live in those areas that don’t have any firearm violence to speak of jump through the hoops made up by fucked up gun control freaks like yourself?
More frivolous gun control laws here in rural America make no sense except for the fact that the deep state/federal government want to control people that they do not agree with.
Gun control has never been about guns, it’s always been about control…
 And you keep on trying to make the NRA as some type of boogie man… They are absolutely harmless. You need to grow a fucking backbone, and shut the fuck up...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> obey all the laws created by the people. Unlike you that you only want to obey the ones that you agree with, cupcake.


Well, cupcake.  The only reason we bitch about your communist laws is because...I don’t know, Cupcake....we will actually obey your commie laws?  Maybe?  Otherwise, cupcake.  We woildn’t give a fuck.  Cupcake.


.

Cupcake


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> So, anyone that agrees with you are "We the People" and anyone that doesn't fall completely in lockstep isn't. Wow, that's pretty narrow minded. The only people I want to see disarmed are the sick puppies that are detrimental to the health of the American People. If you fit that bill, then so be it. Please check yourself in the nearest booby hatch


Likewise, it is only “We the People” when you commies say.  You’re a commire.  You invented the collective not-you form of WethePeolle.  

Cupcake


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 26, 2018)

Cupcake



Septuagenarians calling grown-ass men “cupcake?”  It doesn’t get any more “tap dancing” than that.   Dude’s a straight-up bum surveyor (and the “straight” part of “straight-up” has nothing to do with it).


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



The NRA is for

Bump Stocks
Keeping the Age for buying firearms at 18
No Background Checks
Unlimited Mag size
Open Carry without CCW or any Checks or Training

Sounds like the NRA is run by a bunch of Crazies.  And since you also support those that pretty well means that you are a crazy as well.

Now, about me shutting up.  No.  Simple as that.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> As long as it's to the best interest of the safety of the public.  And that is the bottom line.


Uh...no, snowflake. The bottom line is that “as long as it is constitutional”. The “safety of the public” doesn’t play into that at all.

You continue to illustrate profound ignorance.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)




----------



## Rustic (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


-Bump stocks are an harmless gimmick, a thousand and one ways to do the same thing. Like a string, belt loop and so on.
-People are considered an adult, You can get a learners permit at 13-14 years old in this country for vehicles. And no one has an right to those, unlike firearms. 
Vehicle kill far more people than people using firearms anyways...
-Background checks take too long, In most cases in my store and they take 2 to 4 minutes. Far too long… Yes that system needs some serious upgrading. 
This should be instantaneous..
-Magazines are just an accessory, Size does not matter… LOL
-Open carry, conceal carry, whatever carry cause no problems here in rural America… So why don’t you mind your own business?


----------



## ph3iron (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


Another one off carefully researched example.
I have more of a life than to research. How many 3 yr olds killed their siblings.
Still posting. Ben, our first keep the swarthy German immigrants out?


----------



## ph3iron (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> View attachment 195415


And how old are you brave senior?
Thought you would be battling instead of sucking off your socialist SS Medicare.
You are aren't you?


----------



## ph3iron (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.
> 
> Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven


Did you look up the definition of liberal yet?
Might help your argument.
How do you argue with a guy who has our original immigrant hating guy as his pic?
Says it all


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> I have more of a life than to research


That should be the slogan of the Dumbocrats. That is literally the perfect left-wing sentence. I'm "too busy" trying to "Keep up with the Kardashians" to be informed and educated.

Sorry, but nothing is more important than being informed through good research. That is your fucking job as a U.S. citizen. But, you'd rather smoke pot and follow MTV pop-culture. Which is why you are an ignorant progressive and I can run circles around you here on USMB (and in the real world).


----------



## Jessica123 (May 26, 2018)

I like Guns.

Any minority that is hated better have one or they're at great risk of being genocided.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Thought you would be battling instead of sucking off your socialist SS Medicare.


*A.* I'm not eligible for Social Security. I'm still gainfully employed in the labor force.

*B.* I have torn apart that ignorant left-wing narrative a zillion times already. You can't take all of my money against my will and expect me to refuse to get _some_ of it back when I have the chance. Allow me to opt out of Social Security (meaning I get ALL of my money back and you're not allowed to take any more) and I'll gladly forgo Social Security and Medicare in the future. The fact that you don't allow people to opt out says it all.

"Progressivism: ideas so good they have to be *forced* on society at the barrel of a gun"


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> How do you argue with a guy who has our original immigrant hating guy as his pic?


Better yet, how does one rationalize with a person who has a question mark for _their_ "pic"?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > As long as it's to the best interest of the safety of the public.  And that is the bottom line.
> ...



Not according to the Supreme Courts rulings from the last 80 years or so.  You don't like the law?  Too bad.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...

80-year-old hears noise from his rental house next door and grabs gun. Intruder pays with a bullet.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Thought you would be battling instead of sucking off your socialist SS Medicare.
> ...



And your ideas are good enough that they are to be forced on society at the barrel of a gun that you hold cupcake.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Not according to the Supreme Courts rulings from the last 80 years or so.


Oh...you mean like Heller vs. D.C.? 

You have no clue what you are talking about. Yes, idiot progressive political activists (such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have shredded the U.S. Constitution for their own personal gain. But the Supreme Court has largely upheld the 2nd Amendment as a whole.

Sorry, *not* sorry that that bothers you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...
> 
> 80-year-old hears noise from his rental house next door and grabs gun. Intruder pays with a bullet.



This was far from a life threatening situation.  The Transient was just looking for a place to get out of the elements and the house looked empty.  He wasn't there to steal.  he wasn't there to murder.  He wasn't there to do anything physical.  This is a case where the use of a firearm is just too far.   You gun nutters need to rethink some of the uses.  When you have to go looking for a reason to kill someone then it's downright murder.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And your ideas are good enough that they are to be forced on society at the barrel of a gun that you hold cupcake.


No such thing on the conservative side, snowflake. We don’t do anything by force. Free market. Free thinking. Freedom.

The fact that you parrot my quotes back at me shows just how limited you are intellectually.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Transient was just looking for a place to get out of the elements and the house looked empty.


Yeah....uh....tresspassing *laws* are still in effect (even for “transients”). It’s comical watching you ignorant progressives defend criminal actions.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> When you have to go looking for a reason to kill someone then it's downright murder.


The law says you are permitted to protect yourself and your property. The 80-year old man (who you desperately want to become a victim) didn’t need to go “looking for a reason”. This “transient” _thug_ brought the reason to him.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Not according to the Supreme Courts rulings from the last 80 years or so.
> ...



They have upheld that normal firearms like handguns, shotguns and rifles are okay for the home.  But when you step out into the street, the community has the right to regulate the firearms outside of the home.  If you got all of the toys in your kit bag the streets would be lined with bodies.  This was the reason many western towns in the 1870s went to the no open carry weapons laws.  The Supreme Court normally doesn't let you have all your fondest dreams and sides with the communities.  You are dreaming otherwise, cupcake.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> This was the reason many western towns in the 1870s went to the no open carry weapons laws.


I don’t know what fantasy land you live in, but open carry has been *100% legal* in my state from the day it was founded right up to this moment as I type.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > The Transient was just looking for a place to get out of the elements and the house looked empty.
> ...



It's called Justifiable force.  If a Cop had fired on the transient he would have been in front of the AI shooting board post haste.  In Most States, the old guy would be in front of a judge for attempted homicide.  You notice that there isn't a followup on the story.  He just might still be.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > This was the reason many western towns in the 1870s went to the no open carry weapons laws.
> ...



And, pray tell, what state is that.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...
> ...


Nobody has the ability to be wrong every post quite like you do, Duh-ryl...


> Investigators told KTXL that Lawrence is known to be homeless and has been *arrested a number of times for* drugs, trespassing and *attempted theft*.


----------



## MaryL (May 26, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


Ok so what about all these new fangled school shooting victims? Was that god's will they didn't have guns and one deranged maniac DID? Lets think about that. Suffer the little children onto thee? What kind of god allows that, and then we say it's god's will? Really? Seems rather random and meaningless. We can pray to god to prevent maniacs with guns from destroying us, or we can actually do something instead. We may pray to god, but we still inoculate our kids against germs, or get auto insurance because all that "gods' will" hoodoo, nothing stands between us and death but reason and common sense. Guns are not some  beautiful unicorn at the end of the rainbow. Guns are death, that's all they are. And we need to end that.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> This was the reason many western towns in the 1870s went to the no open carry weapons laws.


Every state in yellow here still permits open carry...


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2018)

MaryL said:


> Ok so what about all these new fangled school shooting victims?


Uh...what about them? 


MaryL said:


> Was that god's will they didn't have guns and one deranged maniac DID?


No. That was human ignorance (otherwise known as “left-wing policy”).


MaryL said:


> Lets think about that.


It really doesn’t take all that much “thinking”, sweetie. Took me less than half a second to answer your idiotic question.


MaryL said:


> What kind of god allows that, and then we say it's god's will?


God didn’t allow that, sweetie. Ignorant left-wingers (who reject God) caused it.


MaryL said:


> Guns are not some  beautiful unicorn at the end of the rainbow.


Yes the are. They are also a constitutional *right*.


MaryL said:


> Guns are death, that's all they are. And we need to end that.


When you end your 1st Amendment right, we can discuss ending my 2nd Amendment right (think real hard about this one sweetie  ).


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 27, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You just can't seem to catch a break.  There are laws against weapons assault.  And this is NOT a case of personal protection.  This is a case someone decided to try and kill another person just because they could.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 27, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > This was the reason many western towns in the 1870s went to the no open carry weapons laws.
> ...



Colorado has always had a law that makes it legal to open carry as long as it's carried in the ready position.  That means, it must not even have a safety strap on it.  This sounds a bit unsafe but the idea is that if everyone is carrying like that you know that everyone is equal that is carrying.  The Ready Position laws dates back to the Dakota laws that many of the western states laws orginated from.  You will not that Texas is different since it originated from it's own laws.  There is a drive to rethink this though.  And I imagine that the next step will be the adoption of the CCW law to open carry.


----------



## P@triot (May 27, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Moving the goalposts? You said he wasn’t there to steal. He clearly was. The transient piece of shit was guilty of numerous offenses (such as trespassing). When you invade the home of another person - you put yourself at risk for being shot.


----------



## P@triot (May 27, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Who cares? Your ignorant ass keeps spreading misinformation. Stop it. Stop making shit up. Like all progressives, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You claimed that “many towns went to NO open carry”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost the entire damn nation permits open carry.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 27, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Talk about moving the goalposts.  There was no one living there.  The transient wasn't armed and made no effort to intimidate in any way.  He was just looking to get out of the elements.  The Transient was not threatening in any way.  This was not a life threatening situation.  The Old guy just decided he wanted to shoot someone.  It's a clear cut  case of using unjustifiable force.  Had a cop done the same thing, that cop would have been in front of a IA shooting board in very serious trouble.  The Guy did NOT have to shoot.  Just the threat would have been enough to clear the transient from the building.  You sure do like to hear of people murdering others don't you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 27, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Would most accept the Smithsonian Institute as a source?

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History | Smithsonian

_As Dykstra wrote, frontier towns by and large prohibited the “carrying of dangerous weapons of any type, concealed or otherwise, by persons other than law enforcement officers.” Most established towns that restricted weapons had few, if any, killings in a given year._

You are well past Ignorant.  One has the option to not stay ignorant only by learning.  You are stupid and there is no cure for stupid.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 27, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > This was the reason many western towns in the 1870s went to the no open carry weapons laws.
> ...


That map is wrong.  Texas now has open carry.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 27, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



In 2016, the Texas Law was changed where if you have a CCW license (they call it something else) you can open carry in a hip holster or a shoulder holster only.  They joined many other Western States.  If you don't have the CCW License, it's still illegal to open carry.  The NRA is going nuts over that one.  Here, the NRA every year has the Republicans try and ram that one through and it doesn't even get all the Republicans support.  The NRA invests millions in every state.  Can you imagine if they spent those bribes for school lunches instead?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 27, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


It is their money.  They can spend it how they choose.  

You mad about that?


----------



## ph3iron (May 27, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I do, the last decision was 5/4 with the decider who shot his hunting guy in the face
And ignorance?
You don't know the original snowflakes?
19 C pro slavery people?
Thought you would be be proud to be one
You continue to publish our Ben, the original German ban guy on immigrants?
And I have profound ignorance?
Still waiting for. Your advanced degrees


----------



## ph3iron (May 27, 2018)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > How do you argue with a guy who has our original immigrant hating guy as his pic?
> ...


It's because cowards like you threatened my wife and kids.
Feel better old white fart?


----------



## Pop23 (May 27, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



How does he do that?

Paranoid?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 27, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



This is why they are no longer a 601(c)(3) non profit anymore.  They make a profit and this is why some of the things they push for sound a bit off to many of us.  They aren't the same company they once were when they were a Non Profit for the Good of the Community.  Now, they are for the good of themselves and their clients.


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Talk about moving the goalposts.  There was no one living there. The transient wasn't armed and made no effort to intimidate in any way.


Just lying as always. The article didn’t cover that so you have absolutely no way of knowing what the dirt-bag *criminal* did or didn’t do.


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2018)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. Just ask yourself why the left is so desperate to violate the U.S. Constitution and disarm the American people (it’s not a tough one to figure out)...


Masked Attacker Killed by Pizzeria Employee Who Was Closing Up for the Night: Fla. Police


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 29, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Talk about moving the goalposts.  There was no one living there. The transient wasn't armed and made no effort to intimidate in any way.
> ...



It did cover it.  It was a rental house.  You sure do like to omit facts to cover the fact that it's a clear case of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill at the very least.  You will notice there is no followon on your story.  Chances are, the old guy is in serious legal trouble right about now.  Your hero is a criminal.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 29, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. Just ask yourself why the left is so desperate to violate the U.S. Constitution and disarm the American people (it’s not a tough one to figure out)...
> 
> 
> Masked Attacker Killed by Pizzeria Employee Who Was Closing Up for the Night: Fla. Police





P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. Just ask yourself why the left is so desperate to violate the U.S. Constitution and disarm the American people (it’s not a tough one to figure out)...
> 
> 
> Masked Attacker Killed by Pizzeria Employee Who Was Closing Up for the Night: Fla. Police



That's 2.  And we have two armed bad guys stopped by non armed citizens.  Looks to me like the gun isn't any more effective than the no armed person.  But at least this time, this was done completely legal and justified.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Awe...snowflake...look at you try to get out from under your *lies*. You said “The transient wasn't armed and *made no effort to intimidate in any way*”. You’re hero is a life long criminal meth head and you’re literally making shit up to defend him. At no point did the article say that.

It’s ok lying little Duh-ryl


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. Just ask yourself why the left is so desperate to violate the U.S. Constitution and disarm the American people (it’s not a tough one to figure out)...
> ...


Uh-oh..._someone_ has a serious reading comprehension problem. 

(Psst..._stupid_...the pizzeria employee was carrying a gun  )


> *The employee was carrying a gun* and said he then fired on his attacker four to five times.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



What's the matter, you don't like to be presented with the facts so you have to invent lies to back a bunch of other lies that you are making?  Well, cupcake, you are just condoning attempted Murder, nothing else.  Next you are going to say the intruder was Black.  Get to it, I know you want to say it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> That's 2. And we have two armed bad guys stopped by non armed citizens. Looks to me like the gun isn't any more effective than the no armed person. But at least this time, this was done completely legal and justified.


If you weren't a pants-shitting septuagenarian, I would invite you to volunteer to go into combat unarmed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



And if you were keeping up, the Pizza Dude was one of the two armed good guys.  But there were also 2 unarmed good guys that went up against armed bad guys trying to do mass shootings.  Having the Gun about evens it out and doesn't show that it's any better than not having it.  But it did take a robbery assault into a body count though.  Without the Gun, the warning from the board carrying bad guy would have been met by the victim turning over the money.  Pizza Drivers are a common robbery Victim in this country.  And MOST just turn the money over and no one dies.  Is 50 bucks worth a life?  To you, it is since you place such a low value on a life.  Okay, maybe yours isn't worth a plug nickel but everyone elses lives are beyond price.  You have NEVER been in such a situation.  Even having the Gun makes the person react differently and it's taken from a simple assault robbery to a life threatening situation.  I know you don't understand that since all you learned are from some kind of stupid fictional movie.  If you are in a situation where the Perp is going to use deadly force in the first place, the gun won't change a thing except maybe decide who the body count will be.   But if it cause it to escalate then the Gun certainly should not be there in the first place.  Most encounters do not start out as a body count.  Only in your Movies and in your Head.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > That's 2. And we have two armed bad guys stopped by non armed citizens. Looks to me like the gun isn't any more effective than the no armed person. But at least this time, this was done completely legal and justified.
> ...



I already have.   Taking a tool box into an active firefight where the bad guys are armed with SKSs and AK-47s is not a fun thing to do and I don't highly recommend it for anyone.  Luckily, our guys (The US Army) was armed with M-16s and M-60s so they kept them, for the most part, off our backs.  Did you know that a Maintenance Troop can learn to one time teleport from the top of a Maintenance Stand to under it when taking fire?  If you can't understand that, you will never understand it.  I didn't sh%%% my pants but it was close.  And since I was Air Force, you could come up with the argument that I was a volunteer but I never saw it that way.

You seem to think that only you gun nutters have combat experience.  Actually, only about 3% of you gun nutters have combat experience but all of you will claim that you do.  I don't propose the taking of legal guns but I do wonder if we shouldn't come up with a law that anyone that is posting like you gunnutters do shouldn't go though a mental test to see if you are a danger to society.  Maybe that's why the laws to do just that is so fervently fought against by the NRA.  Nut Cases like you couldn't buy more guns and ammo.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I already have. Taking a tool box into an active firefight where the bad guys are armed with SKSs and AK-47s is not a fun thing to do and *I don't highly recommend it for anyone.*


Then, you get my point.  Being armed in a firefight is better than being unarmed.

Both my parents were Vietnam vets.  Mom served as a surgical nurse.  Dad served in Saigon where he was awarded the Bronze Star with the "V" device on it.  He never talked about what he did to deserve it, and I have never seen any citation for it.  So, I sincerely thank you for your service.   

Now, back to insulting you.


----------



## PredFan (May 30, 2018)




----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I already have. Taking a tool box into an active firefight where the bad guys are armed with SKSs and AK-47s is not a fun thing to do and *I don't highly recommend it for anyone.*
> ...



Since you have never been in a situtation then You don't get my point.  A War situation is not even close to a civilian robbery of a Pizza Delivery Person or a Quick Stop Clerk.  There are thousands of robberies of those people yearly you don't hear about because they elect to just give them the money without violence.  There are only a few that the perp comes in with body count on their minds.  There are also fewer that the "Victim" will be armed and get killed.  And then there are only a couple that will end up with the "Victim" getting it over the "Perp".  There are more "Perps" stopped with baseball bats than guns.  It's not the baseball bat, it's the crazy behavior that scares the living hell out of the Perp.  

And since you haven't paid the admission, you don't have the right to insult.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Show us in the article where it said that the intruder "*made no effort to intimidate in any way*". Can't do it? So you're just admitting you lied without actually admitting you lied. Good enough I guess. Thank you!!!

By the way, like all dirt-bag progressives, you're actually sitting here attempting to defend a life-long meth head and burglar, while attempting to claim that an 80-year old man is "evil" and should go to prison. That says it all.


----------



## Kosh (May 30, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



Yes there are many such stories about how someone with a gun saved lives, but that would defeat the entire far left religious narrative.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2018)

PredFan said:


> View attachment 195894


Dude...you absolutely win the internet today! Epic.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You are pulling the "Fake News" crap that we are all on to.  Since no news of the intruder was reported of him being agressive, guess what, that means he made no aggressive moves towards the old man.  Unless you considering standing there and absorbing bullets as an agressive move.  All the other crap you are coming up with is just "Fake News" crap.   You are the only one that has reported that he is a life long anything.  He's homeless.  And no doubt uses drugs and might steal anything not nailed down if he got the chance.  But there is no record of him EVER being violent.  So he gets shot for trying to get out of the elements in an empty house.  Now, that's a reason for a Death Sentence if I ever heard of one, right?

He shouldn't go to prison but he should have to surrender his weapons and pay for the medical bills of the person he shot along with a nice tidy fine and damages.  It doesn't do any good to lock an 80 year old up in prison.  But he can't get off scot free either.  And I have a feeling that the trespassing charges will go "Time Served" for the vagrant.  The old guy used Excessive Force, period.

I guess the next person that leans up against your car or truck needs to be pumped full of bullets, right?  Now, that would serve them right.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

P@triot said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 195894
> ...



Kim:  It's your turn to sell your cookies
Sarah:  Not me, it's your turn.
Jane:  No, let's send Francine
Francine:  I just quit the Girl Scouts.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And since you haven't paid the admission, you don't have the right to insult.


I disagree....granny.



And you have discounted and/or wholly ignored deterrence.  Texas has very few home invasions because breaking into someone's home is almost always a death sentence.  You want to rid us of that very real advantage?

In most mugging situations, a person carrying concealed will likely comply and turn over money without pulling their firearm. Assault?  Rape?  All bets are off.  I would much rather be armed or have my wife/daughter armed in those situations than NOT--just like combatants would much rather be armed on the battlefield than not.  You said so yourself.  

And, take care not to shit your pants----you old codger, you.  Or, should I say......CUPCAKE...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> It's not the baseball bat, it's the crazy behavior that scares the living hell out of the Perp.


And, a firearm wouldn't produce similar responses?  

There are many examples of soldiers who are outnumbered and who survived because they acted decisively, with extreme violence toward the enemies.  

Are you saying that approach does not apply to assaults or rape situations?  Just firing the firearm will have a much more dramatic effect, even if you hit nothing.  The baseball bat situation may allow the perp to regroup and come back for a second attack, but few will come back for round 2 when a firearm is involved.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And since you haven't paid the admission, you don't have the right to insult.
> ...



If you are putting your Wife or your Daughter into that type of Situation you shouldn't have a Wife or a Daughter.  If you live in an area that you truly have reasons to fear such things either do something about it through law enforcement or get the hell out of there.  Do you hate your Wife and Daughter that much?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 30, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the baseball bat, it's the crazy behavior that scares the living hell out of the Perp.
> ...



In Anti Rape Classes, they do teach this type or behavior.  It works.  That is, unless the perp already has his weapon drawn and pointed at you.  Then it's better to cooperate and look for an opening down the tracks.  If you don't find one then the perp gets what they want and you keep breathing.  But at the first second, if the woman goes into full attack mode and just goes nuts there is a chance that she can buy enough space to disengage.  The  Perp will think twice before persuing.  But once that perp has the weapon out (a gun) then it's cooperation time.  Just remember, a man can't really hold a gun with his pants down trying to insert.  Good time to go beserk for a woman can run faster with her skirts up than  a man can with his pants down.

But if you are really worried about this happening you need to do a rethink of the area you are living.  Either do something by increasing funding for the Law Enforcement or just get the hell out of there.  I don't worry about any of that where I live.  A Woman can walk down the street at 2 am alone without fear of any of this here because if it becomes a problem, someone will come to their aid and everyone know that is the case.  If you are living in an area where there are just too many animals then why haven't you done something about it?  Are you slathering at the mouth waiting for it to happen so you can have an excuse for violent action?  Send you wife/daughters to a self defense class.  You would be surprised at what they learn and how it changes their day to day operation.  Maybe they would even hide you guns since it sounds like you might be a little unhinged as well.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 30, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> If you are putting your Wife or your Daughter into that type of Situation you shouldn't have a Wife or a Daughter. If you live in an area that you truly have reasons to fear such things either do something about it through law enforcement or get the hell out of there. Do you hate your Wife and Daughter that much?


I live in the safest neighborhood in my metro area.  We still get murders and rapes.  You are a delusional fuck if you think I can always prevent everything through law enforcement.

And, no, motherfucker, I don't hate my family, you asshole.  Don't pull out that bullshit.  *XXXX - Mod Edit. Just a bit too much flame. *


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You are pulling the "Fake News" crap that we are all on to.  Since no news of the intruder was reported of him being agressive, guess what, that means he made no aggressive moves towards the old man.


Wow. Talk about “fake news”. You are trying to make the case that the news not only has 100% of the information in the official police report, but also shares that 100%, 100% of the time.

Idiotic. Desperate. Like I said...you flat-out *lied* and you got caught. Game over.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> In Anti Rape Classes, they do teach this type or behavior.  It works.


So Duh-rly not only wants women completely disarmed and helpless, but he also attends “anti-rape classes” to understand what women are taught about trying to avoid becoming a victim? Wow. Just....._wow_. Draw your own conclusions here folks.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (May 31, 2018)

The NRA has this area so jammed up that it's completely unusable.  We can't have a decent conversation at all.  The Moderators have only made sure that the nasty behavior of the NRA paid trolls is acceptable.  Sure do hope it costs the NRA lots and lots of money.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 31, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I guess the Dr who lived in a really nice CT suburb shouldn't have had a wife and kids because two pieces of shit invaded his home beat him within an inch of his life than raped his wife and two daughters before burning them alive.

If you weren't so fucking naive you would realize that there is real violence in the world


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 31, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> The NRA has this area so jammed up that it's completely unusable.  We can't have a decent conversation at all.  The Moderators have only made sure that the nasty behavior of the NRA paid trolls is acceptable.  Sure do hope it costs the NRA lots and lots of money.


We can't have a decent conversation because you are a freedom-hating commie asshole who wants a total ban.  We have exposed your goose-stepping commie tendencies.  You are fooling no one, motherfucker.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> The NRA has this area so jammed up that it's completely unusable.


The NRA doesn’t have that kind of power. And you fascists know it too. But you refuse to accept the fact that *We the People* have spoken and that we will not surrender our 2nd Amendment rights.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 10, 2018)

Left-wing policy at its finest here. Oppressive government has outlawed guns, knives, and even hammers in London. How is that working out?

Not so well. The criminals are loving it. After all, they are criminals. They don’t follow the law. But they are cashing in big time on the fact that law abiding citizens do.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is a typical left-wing piece of shit. Surrounded by armed guards, he and his family are completely safe while the unarmed population suffers (just like Saddam Hussein in Iraq).

A Weekend in London: Man ‘Shot in Face,’ Woman ‘Slashed,' Attempted Murder


----------



## P@triot (Jun 10, 2018)

Left-wing policy at its finest here. Oppressive government has outlawed guns, knives, and even hammers in London. How is that working out?

Not so well. The criminals are loving it. After all, they are criminals. They don’t follow the law. But they are cashing in big time on the fact that law abiding citizens do.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is a typical left-wing piece of shit. Surrounded by armed guards, he and his family are completely safe while the unarmed population suffers (just like Saddam Hussein in Iraq).

Khan’s London: Man Found Guilty of Stabbing Young Father to Death in Front of Partner for Rolex


----------



## P@triot (Jul 6, 2018)

Once again a woman and her children are safe thanks to our 2nd Amendment *right*...

Dallas Mom of 2 Shoots Man in Head After He Attempts to Steal Her Car with Toddlers Inside: 'I Had to Do What I Had to Do'


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Once again a woman and her children are safe thanks to our 2nd Amendment *right*...
> 
> Dallas Mom of 2 Shoots Man in Head After He Attempts to Steal Her Car with Toddlers Inside: 'I Had to Do What I Had to Do'



Those children weren't safe then and they aren't safe now.  Mom put them in that situation.  Had she been a decent mother, it would have never happened at all.  You blood lust miscreants just see blood and firing of weapons and don't care how dangerous Mom makes those children's lives each and every day.   Guess you were dropped on your heads too much as children until your heads get the look of the Stewie and think it's normal.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 6, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Once again a woman and her children are safe thanks to our 2nd Amendment *right*...
> ...


Left-wing “logic”: _always_ blame the victim. Always defend the thug.

Not only are those children safe today, the U.S. is exponentially safer today because one less thug is roaming around.

You continue to illustrate why you are the board idiot, Duh-ryl.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




I used to call this trait of the left "Reality Dyslexia."  They see the truth as lies, fact as fiction, good as evil, evil as good, right is wrong......take any issue, and the left will be on the wrong side of it.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Until the next one comes by and sees the same situation where the keys are in the ignition, the motor is left running, the door is left open and the kids are in the back seat.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 7, 2018)

Women especially, should seriously consider Concealed/Open Carry. Obtain a firearm and become proficient in its use. Women don't have to be defenseless prey. They have a Constitutional Right to arm themselves. They should definitely exercise that right.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Until the next one comes by and sees the same situation where the keys are in the ignition, the motor is left running, the door is left open and the kids are in the back seat.


And then he gets a couple of rounds of hot lead in his head as well. Problem solved _again_.

You're the only _asshole_ I know who believes it is ok for a person to (and I quote) "see a situation where the keys are in the ignition, the motor is left running, the door is left open, and the kids are in the backseat" and steal the vehicle because of those parameters.

I see keys in vehicles ALL the time. I don't steal them. I see children ALL the time. I don't kidnap them. You're truly a fuck'n idiot. You can't justify his actions no matter how hard you try. The guy was a thug. When you're a thug, your life ends in one of two ways: dead or in prison. In his case, it was dead.

God Bless this woman. The streets are safer today, her children are safe, and she is safe. All because she took the personal responsibility to carry a firearm. She didn't rely on law enforcement (who weren't there at the moment so they couldn't have stopped it).


----------



## P@triot (Jul 7, 2018)

Dschrute3 said:


> Women especially, should seriously consider Concealed/Open Carry. Obtain a firearm and become proficient in its use. Women don't have to be defenseless prey. They have a Constitutional Right to arm themselves. They should definitely exercise that right.


And that is the single biggest reason why fascists like Duh-ryl fight against the 2nd Amendment. Predators desperately want women unarmed. So they can easily overpower them and victimize them - whether it is robbery, rape, or even worse.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Until the next one comes by and sees the same situation where the keys are in the ignition, the motor is left running, the door is left open and the kids are in the back seat.
> ...



Or he succeeds in the crime and the kids are left dead in an alley.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dschrute3 said:
> 
> 
> > Women especially, should seriously consider Concealed/Open Carry. Obtain a firearm and become proficient in its use. Women don't have to be defenseless prey. They have a Constitutional Right to arm themselves. They should definitely exercise that right.
> ...



Most of my female relatives are very experienced and comfortable handling firearms. They sure aren't easy prey. Try something with them, the perpetrator is in serious trouble. More women should seriously consider Concealed/Open Carry.

Sadly, too many women listen to Communists/Democrats who give them terrible advice. Their judgement gets clouded by political B.S. So they stay defenseless. But they can properly defend themselves. They can become comfortable and proficient with firearms. They should exercise their Constitutional Right, and properly defend themselves from the multitude of predators out there.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 7, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Or he succeeds in the crime and the kids are left dead in an alley.


Yeah...uh....he *didn't* "succeed" in the crime. You're inability to accept reality is getting worse and worse.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Or he succeeds in the crime and the kids are left dead in an alley.
> ...



Yeah, it is a sort of 'derangement.' It sounds like that poster would have preferred to see the criminal be successful. Only a Communist/Democrat could have that kind of warped mentality. They're pretty messed up folks.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



Has the Donald been fighting for our second amendment right Unlike the clintons,Bushs and Obamas did?


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 7, 2018)

LA RAM FAN said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 10, 2018)

And yet the left will _try_ to convince you that there is absolutely no need to carry a firearm. They will swear that the world is “safe” and it is such a “rare” occurrence.

Father, 4-Year-Old Son Fatally Shot with Hunting Rifle — as Mom is Chased to Her Death off Ravine


----------



## P@triot (Jul 10, 2018)

And yet the left will _try_ to convince you that there is absolutely no need to carry a firearm. They will swear that the world is “safe” and it is such a “rare” occurrence.

Police Search Landfill for Missing Florida Hairdresser — and Coworker Seen Discarding Trash Bag Is Suspect


----------



## P@triot (Jul 10, 2018)

And yet the left will _try_ to convince you that there is absolutely no need to carry a firearm. They will swear that the world is “safe” and it is such a “rare” occurrence.

Man, 92, Allegedly Beaten With a Brick & Told 'Go Back to Mexico' by a Mom in Front of Her Child


----------



## P@triot (Jul 10, 2018)

And yet the left will _try_ to convince you that there is absolutely no need to carry a firearm. They will swear that the world is “safe” and it is such a “rare” occurrence.

Pa. Woman Called 911 on Ex-Boyfriend Moments Before She Was Stabbed to Death

Just imagine if this woman had a firearm to defend herself with rather than a phone with the numbers 9 and 1 on it.


----------



## sparky (Jul 10, 2018)

I have lots of guns,   and......mine are bigger than ......yours.....~S~


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 10, 2018)

P@triot said:


> And yet the left will _try_ to convince you that there is absolutely no need to carry a firearm. They will swear that the world is “safe” and it is such a “rare” occurrence.
> 
> Father, 4-Year-Old Son Fatally Shot with Hunting Rifle — as Mom is Chased to Her Death off Ravine



You do know the Georgia that the article is talking about is in Eastern Europe. don't you?  Don't you even proof read your own cites before you jump on it to further your sick cause?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the left will _try_ to convince you that there is absolutely no need to carry a firearm. They will swear that the *world* is “safe” and it is such a “rare” occurrence.
> ...


Yes, dumb ass. Which is exactly why I specifically used the term “world” and not “U.S.”.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 21, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



And what does this have to do with discussing gun control in the United States?  Are you also going to list each and every gun slaughter in different parts of Yemen?  How about Venezuela?  Or are you going to stay on the subject of the United States.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And what does this have to do with discussing gun control in the United States?


Because it illustrates that the left is dead wrong about their false narrative that the world is so “safe”. I don’t care where you live, only an idiot walks around without a gun on them. Las Vagas is a very expensive, upscale city. And they just had a mass shooting. Case closed.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 21, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


You are offtopic in yer own OP is this about gun rights or females or leftist?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 21, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And what does this have to do with discussing gun control in the United States?
> ...


Jesus was never armed he was an idiot..


----------



## dave p (Jul 21, 2018)

hangover said:


> God is positive energy....guns are negative energy that destroys....therefore you worship Satan.


There is no god and no Satan.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 21, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Jesus told his followers to buy swords.... he had a different agenda, dying so that we can live.......


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Jesus was never armed he was an idiot..


*A.* Jesus came specifically to *die*. Thank you for illustrating the point for us, stupid.

*B.* In Jesus day, all people accepted the Bible. They didn’t have to deal with left-wing thugs.

*C.* There were no guns on Jesus’s day. They didn’t exist, idiot.

The more I read posts from the left on USMB, the more I understand why they are low IQ Dumbocrat voters. You people are completely incapable of understanding an issue and forming a coherent position on it.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2018)

Just imagine if Ayub Ali had the damn sense to arm himself. He would be alive and well this morning...

Father of Parkland student survivors fatally shot during armed robbery


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 21, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



It was a different time and a different place.  Much like the Country of Georgia versus the State of Georgia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 21, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was never armed he was an idiot..
> ...



I won't go into this.  But your point B is completely wrong.  And if you replace the word gun with weapon, most were armed with daggers and such for the same reason that some feel that they need to protect their homes today.  In that part of the world, if you were caught openly carrying a dagger or any kind of weapon, you were arrested.  The Romans didn't have a really good sense of humor regarding that.

Now, how about getting back on track.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 30, 2018)

Remember folks, the left says there is no reason to carry a gun and only a “coward” carries one. Make no mistake about it - this is *exactly* why the left went to disarm the population. To make sure women are disarmed and helpless.

Woman Brutally Attacked While Walking Her Dog Shares Images of Her Injuries to Warn Others


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jul 31, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Remember folks, the left says there is no reason to carry a gun and only a “coward” carries one. Make no mistake about it - this is *exactly* why the left went to disarm the population. To make sure women are disarmed and helpless.
> 
> Woman Brutally Attacked While Walking Her Dog Shares Images of Her Injuries to Warn Others



You speaking for other people once again?  Are you speaking for me again?  And why would anyone believe you are the Great and All Powerful CranaK.  Stop making shit up.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 6, 2018)

‘Old Rahm Emanuel sure is doing a “bang” up job in Chicago (pun intended). Wherever failed left-wing policy is implemented, poverty, death, and misery is certain to follow. They lost their 2nd Amendment rights. How is that working out for them?

Massive crime spree in Chicago leaves 59 people shot, eight dead since Friday


----------



## P@triot (Aug 6, 2018)

The left’s favorite lie about firearms is that “an armed citizen has never prevented a mass shooting”. Well, that simply isn’t true. Many armed citizens have prevented many mass shootings. And it happened again this weekend.


> An armed bystander with a concealed carry license shot a gunman who opened fire at a back-to-school event in Titusville, Florida, over the weekend.


Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. Many lives were saved thanks to that common sense right.

Gunman opens fire at back-to-school event in Florida — then armed bystander steps in


----------



## P@triot (Nov 4, 2018)

Thank God for his *right* to keep and bear arms. The armed individual involved in this situation is the hero today. The unarmed individual is dead today. Any questions?

Video shows man with concealed carry permit using gun to subdue suspect in Seattle fatal stabbing


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for his *right* to keep and bear arms. The armed individual involved in this situation is the hero today. The unarmed individual is dead today. Any questions?
> 
> Video shows man with concealed carry permit using gun to subdue suspect in Seattle fatal stabbing



The Gun made the situation worse.  It was stopped by the Taser.  And it wasn't a very good taser at that.  I would think a wired taser would be the weapon of choice.  All the gun did was anger the culprit even worse.  If the gun bearer didn't have the guts to shoot him he shouldn't have drawn it in the first place.  Again, it was the taser that ended up disabling the knife wielder, not the gun.

Sorry, but your blood lust had nothing to do with stopping the knife wielder at all.  All it did was endanger others in the vicinity until the taser wielder stopped the knife wielder cold.  NEVER pull a gun if you don't plan on using it you Rexall Rangers.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 5, 2018)

Thank a god for humans having rights, what a dope. God had nothing to do with it, it is all a human construct.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 5, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Thank a god for humans having rights, what a dope. God had nothing to do with it, it is all a human construct.



Yes, imagine that God wanted there to be human rights, then you'd expect MORE PEOPLE to actually be under systems where human rights exist, wouldn't you? I mean, you'd have to be a pretty useless god to have let China slip.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 5, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Thank a god for humans having rights, what a dope. God had nothing to do with it, it is all a human construct.
> ...


Especially since all the nations in the world that claim to be Christian, God must not have cared then...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 5, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Yeah, he cared so much he made them Muslims and Buddhists and Atheists.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 5, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




He expects us to actually listen to what he had to say in the Bible, and spread the word on our own....  we aren't his toys or robots, we are individual creations with free will....


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 5, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for his *right* to keep and bear arms. The armed individual involved in this situation is the hero today. The unarmed individual is dead today. Any questions?
> ...



Who said "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel?"
None of our brave toters have ever been in hand to hand combat or had the crap bombed out of them.
Just pontificate from their double wides
While sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 5, 2018)

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Down 49% from what?
So what is it?
Still 5x Europe?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 5, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Here you go.....

And as to Europe, they have always had lower gun murder rates,  now...they are becoming more violent, not less violent....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for his *right* to keep and bear arms. The armed individual involved in this situation is the hero today. The unarmed individual is dead today. Any questions?
> ...


Spoken like a true ignorant wing-nut. This is so basic and so simple, only a nitwit like you could be confused. The armed individual involved in this situation is the hero today. The unarmed individual is dead today. Any questions?


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Still 5x Europe?


And there you have it folks. The anti-American hatriots desire to be like Europe. She accidentally let it slip here. She measures against Europe because that’s what she wants the United States to be. And yet she doesn’t renounce her citizenship and move to Europe. How bizarre.

Europe...the continent of oppression. The British Empire. The Monarchy of France. Adolf Hitler. Benito Mussolini.

Yeah...thanks...but no thanks sweetheart. If the U.S. and our 2nd Amendment is just to skeery for you - there is the door. Don’t let it hit you in the ass on your way out.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 5, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



He was stopped by the taser, not the firearm.  The person with the firearm just made the situation worse.  Had he been armed with a decent wired taser, it would have ended quickly.  And the victim would still have died no matter what.  You just want to give the gun the credit.  The gun was a negative factor.  But the dude with the taser put his life on the line to taser him and contain the situation because your "Hero" didn't have the guts to pull that trigger.  The longer the situation was drawn out, the more dangerous it became.  And the dude with the Taser knew it and put an end to it.

Your Hero should NOT have access to any form of firearms since he's not willing to actually pull that trigger.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 5, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Walk a mile in my head.  You won't like the trip.  We do things that no one else are willing or capable of doing because it has to be done to enable everyone to have  freedoms.  You don't have to thank us, you don't have to even be grateful.  We don't do it for you.  We do it for our families and neighbors.  You just happen to benefit from it as well.  I deserve my VA benefits and have paid for them.

As for my SS Benefits, I paid for them every month for many decades.  Those aren't entitlements.  I paid into a fund that is supposed to be the same as an IRA.  It's not yours to spend as you wish.  It's not a Politicians to spend as he wishes.  It's MY money.  Taking it for any uses other than by me is just plain theft.

It gets under my skin when someone just calls themselves a "Patriot" and all others are not that don't think exactly like they do.  I've known quite a few real Patriots and almost all are as different as the day is long until the ball drops.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 5, 2018)

There are far more important things in this world than circle-jerking over guns.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> ...because your "Hero" *didn't* *have* *the* *guts* to pull that trigger.


Typical of the bloodlust left to attempt to belittle a good citizen for showing restraint. Of course, had he actually pulled the trigger, the anti-gun pussy here would be screaming about “murder”. 


Daryl Hunt said:


> Your Hero should NOT have access to any form of firearms *since* *he's* *not* *willing* *to* *actually* *pull* *that* *trigger*.


You continue to illustrate astounding ignorance. It is illegal in all 50 states to shoot a man in the back as he is running away. Had he done that, you left-wing pussies would be demanding he be prosecuted. That’s the problem in the United States today. The left wants to demonize the law abiding citizen and shed tears for the violent criminal.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> The longer the situation was drawn out, the more dangerous it became.


That is just a special kind of stupid. The murder happened *first*. After that, not much else occurred. It was most dangerous at the beginning, you dimwitted dumb ass.

Partisan hack much?


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

Kondor3 said:


> There are far more important things in this world than circle-jerking over guns.


But...there is *nothing* more important than upholding and defending the U.S. Constitution. Especially the 2nd Amendment.

Now hush. The adults are speaking.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Walk a mile in my head.


Well...since that brain is barely an inch...I’m sure there is more than enough room in that skull to do some walking.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 5, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > There are far more important things in this world than circle-jerking over guns.
> ...


There is nothing more important than God and Family and Country... pretty much in that order.

The Second Amendment is important but it is only one tiny piece of the Constitution and nowhere _near_ the _most_ important part.

You clowns spend your entire lives yapping "_Guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns_"...

Bore... bore... bore...

Guns are merely a defensive mechanism designed to keep Family and Self from harm in the event of a crisis.

They're a _tool_... not a _Major Food Group_... get a phukking grip.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 5, 2018)




----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 5, 2018)

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



So then you go and attack people fro being individual creations.

Doesn't that sound a bit weird? If God created humans and humans created religions, then doesn't God want religions to get along with each other?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 5, 2018)

Rustic said:


>



Give me one reason why I need a nuclear bomb.

Give me one reason why what I own is any of your fucking business.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 5, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Give me a reason to believe an individual can even purchase or build a nuke.  The entire nation of Iran has been working on getting nukes for decades.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 5, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


Yes or I wouldn’t have shot this


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Give me one reason why I need a nuclear bomb.


Because your government has one. And despite your wishes otherwise, they are *not* your mommy & daddy. They don’t get to tell you what you can and cannot own. The government answers to the people, the people do not answer to the government. Helpless dumb ass.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Give me one reason why I need a nuclear bomb.
> ...


I love that completely irrational, highly immature “argument” by the left. I obliterate it _every_ time (as you just did here).


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 5, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Why shouldn't an individual not be able to purchase a nuke? If Russia wanted to sell you a nuke, why shouldn't you be able to buy it?

If a Russian citizen in the US wanted to bring their nuke with them on holiday, what's the problem?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 5, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



How is this "irrational, highly immature "argument""?

Basically any argument must be able to function at the extremes. If I should be allowed to own a firearm and no one can question my desire to own a firearm, then the same thing should hold true for EVERY SINGLE THING.

What is it about nukes that you think should prevent an individual from owning a nuke? 

Or is it you don't have anything so you go into your dictionary and pick out some adjectives and fling them in order to try and stop the debate?

So you want to be rational and mature, you can answer my question. 

Why should individuals no be able to own nukes? Even if it's just theoretical.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 5, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


And if I want to smuggle a gay unicorn into the Yemen Republic, I should be allowed and the unicorn should not be thrown from a building.  

.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > ...because your "Hero" *didn't* *have* *the* *guts* to pull that trigger.
> ...



The knife wielder was aggressing towards the gun wielder.  That means that the Knife Wielder would have his front pointed to the gun wielder.  Just how stupid can you get or just how stupid do you want the rest of us to be.  Not going to happen.  The Gun Wielder could have wasted the SOB and not a court in the country would have found him guilty of any crime unless it might have been littering if he didn't police his brass afterwards.  

The Knife Wielder had already mortally wounded his Girl Friend and was approaching the Gun Wielder.  There was nothing the Gun Wielder could do (nor anyone else) to prevent that death.  The Knife Wielder encroaches on the gun wielder and the gun wield keeps saying "Drop the Knife" while moving backwards.  He says it a few times.  It's obvious that the knife wielder will not drop the knife and keeps coming forward.  Another person comes in from the rear quandrant with a hand held taser and hits the knife wielder in the throat with the charge dropping him which was a pretty gutsy move considering the knife was one step above the taser on the scale of weapons.  

For argument sake, we remove the Taser person from the equation.  Now, let me ask you this, what would have happened if the backward walking Gun Toter had tripped and fallen down?  Would the gun had discharged?  And where would the projectile have gone?  Would the knife wielder have been on him slashing? 

I would have given the person two warnings to drop the knife and then center body massed him with a double tap.  No walking backwards.  The life I would save might have been my own.  The other life was already lost.  And maybe, had the SOB been dropped faster medical help could have saved the girl, who knows, if it had been gotten there faster.  If you aren't willing to pull that trigger, don't pull that weapon.

It's sad that you are taking the side of the Rexall Ranger on this and I am taking the side of just wasting the SOB right away.  Says loads about whether you should be wandering around armed or not.  If I pull a weapon, rest assured, I am willing to use it, no questions asked.  If I am not willing to use it then I won't pull it.  I can back away trying to talk him into dropping the knife without the gun just fine  if I don't intend to kill him.  But at some point, I will stop, draw my weapon, give him one warning and then blow him away if he doesn't immediately comply, no hesitation.  And then I am going to have to find a Church.  You Rexall Rangers have no concept of a life threatening situation outside of what you see in some fantasy movie.

I watched the clip and saw it come down.  And you Rexall Rangers who walk around trying to make your dicks feel bigger need to learn to be a man by being a man, not some gun totin' Rexall Ranger.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > The longer the situation was drawn out, the more dangerous it became.
> ...



The Murder already happened.  What the clip showed was what happened aftewards.  And your Hero, the Rexall Ranger with the Gun is an Idiot.  The real hero is the one with the Taser.  You keep leaving him out of the equation.  You Rexall Rangers always want to pat the gun toters on the back.  Learn to recognize the real heroes for a change.  But since you can't, fruitcake, you end up looking like the idiot you really are.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Why shouldn't an individual not be able to purchase a nuke?


They should be! That’s the point that you are missing. You celebrate the government having nuclear weapons and yet the people - who the government answers to - are somehow told by their subordinates what they can and can’t have.


frigidweirdo said:


> If Russia wanted to sell you a nuke, why shouldn't you be able to buy it?


You should be able to. But...the federal government does have the constitutional right to control what comes into the country. Article I, Section 8:


> “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”





frigidweirdo said:


> If a Russian citizen in the US wanted to bring their nuke with them on holiday, what's the problem?


The problem is they are not a U.S. citizen. Therefore, they don’t have 2nd Amendment rights.

Good grief your arguments have all of the intellect of 2nd grader.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> How is this "irrational, highly immature "argument""? Basically any argument must be able to *function* *at* *the* *extremes*.


You just answered your own question, snowflake. Logical, rational, reasonable people do *not* function in the “extremes”. ISIS functions in the extremes. Adolf Hitler functioned in the extremes.

How are you not embarrassed by your posts?


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> What is it about nukes that you think should prevent an individual from owning a nuke?


Um...I *don’t*. At all. People should be able to own nuclear weapons as far as the government is concerned. But here is the reality, my immature and ignorant little friend:

1. What business sells nuclear weapons? Does Google sell them? How about Amazon? Can I get a nuclear weapon on Amazon?

2. Since no corporation sells them, where am I going to get one? I can’t buy it on the black market since the U.S. can constitutionally control what comes into the U.S. (as I just explained to you in my previous post).

3. Even if #2 weren’t an issue, it would cost tens of millions of dollars. Only your believed 1% could afford them. You think Bill Gates is in the market for a nuclear warhead? How about Warren Buffett? Mark Zuckerberg?

4. Nuclear arms require coordinated key codes. Which means, if I owned one, I would need other people to help me launch it. So even if I had a mental health issue, the likelihood that the other people with the codes would be willing to launch is a trillion to one.

Are you done with your immature nonsense now son? Can you grow up and form a logical rational position now? Please?


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> If I pull a weapon, rest assured, I am willing to use it, no questions asked.


Awe...look at _you_...internet Rambo! We’re all so proud of your immature and wreckless bravdao.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Now, let me ask you this, what would have happened if the backward walking Gun Toter had tripped and fallen down?  Would the gun had discharged?


Now let me ask you something. What would happen if you’re driving your car on a bridge, a massive earthquake strikes, and you car falls on a little 1 year old baby girl in a stroller - horrifically killing her _instantly_?

Wouldn’t you agree you should not be behind the wheel of an automobile? All of us agree. Baby killer.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Now, let me ask you this, what would have happened if the backward walking Gun Toter had tripped and fallen down?  Would the gun had discharged?
> ...



Answer my question.  No strawman will be accepted.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I would have given the person two warnings to drop the knife and then center body massed him with a double tap.  No walking backwards.


Awe....internet Rambo....nobody cares what you claim you would do. You’re the official USMB _asshole_. 

In *reality*, everyone knows you would have been unarmed in that situation and peeing your pants in fear (probably crying as well).


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


No strawman was given. Answer my question (which was the answer to your’s).


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> ...and then *blow* *him* *away* if he doesn't immediately comply, no hesitation.


I really hope, for your sake, that you’re never involved in a shooting, internet Rambo. The prosecution will fucking eat you alive with your quotes here.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And you Rexall Rangers who walk around trying to make your dicks feel bigger need to learn to be a man by being a man, not some gun totin' Rexall Ranger.


Hey...you’re the internet Rambo blasting the Good Samaritan for intervening *without* _any_ further loss of life. You’re pissed off the armed citizen didn’t kill this guy. There was no need in this particular situation, so he didn’t.

He’s a hero...you’re an asshole. It really is that simple.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > If I pull a weapon, rest assured, I am willing to use it, no questions asked.
> ...



There is a difference.  I have been in a situation where I had to know.  BTW, it's okay to puke afterwards even if you don't knowingly kill anyone.  It's okay to sit and rock back and forth afterwards.  It's okay to pray afterwards.  It's okay to be scared shitless afterwards.  You will never know this and I hope you never do.  But there are others in here that know what I am talking about.  You will probably pull your weapon long before I do and probably make things worse in the process.  I will pull it only when there is no other choice.  As long as there are other choices, I will appear to be unarmed.  But when or if I do pull it I will have every intention of using it without hesitation.  My hesitation happens BEFORE I pull the weapon.  Like I said,, I already faced armed enemy.  I  wrote my ass off decades ago.  But I didn't write off the people that are in the near vicinity.  I ain't no hero like you are and sometimes, no one needs to die.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > ...and then *blow* *him* *away* if he doesn't immediately comply, no hesitation.
> ...



Actually, I follow the Law.  If it requires the discharge of the firearm to protect others, including myself against an armed person that has already shown he is capable of killing those around him then it's perfectly legal since the Gun is legal and the carry permit is legal.  Otherwise, every cop shooting would imprison the cop on what  normally be deemed a "Good Shooting".  What you are showing is, you are the wrong person to be in that situation and there is a good chance that people are going to be killed that maybe don't have to die.  So go ahead and stand there and wave your penis enlarger around.  Guess who get's it first.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Nope, apples and and oranges you  are are still trying to strawman the  subject.  I  described the  situation as it really happened.  The armed citizen was backing away while holding his charged weapon.  He continues to back away while telling the other person to drop the knife who is totally yelling for him to shoot him as he closes with the knife that he just mortally wounded  another person with.  The Armed Citizen didn't have the guts to fire that weapon at all.  Chances are, he would back into something that would disrupt his aim and the gun would discharge and he would have NO control over the direction.  The day was saved by the brave person with the stun gun.  

Never pull a gun if you don't absolutely intend on killing.  And when you do, be prepared and willing to kill.  You rexall rangers don't understand that.  And I hope that you never do.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 11, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And you Rexall Rangers who walk around trying to make your dicks feel bigger need to learn to be a man by being a man, not some gun totin' Rexall Ranger.
> ...



Pure chance dictated the outcome.  The person backing away had tunnel vision and was totally unaware of the person closing with   the Tazer.    Since you have never been faced with this type of situation you don't understand.  And if blowing the SOB away because he kept coming with the knife saves even one life, including my own then I guess I can  live with being an Asshole.  But I will be a live asshole and so will the others that have survived his attack.   The attacker already demonstrated that he had no qualms about killing anyone else around him.  If I have to be an asshole ti stop that asshole then you can just call me Mr. Asshole.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Basic common sense. So simple, only a progressive could be confused by it...

Crime Plummets After QuikTrip Stores Add Good Guys with Guns


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


So does every other internet Rambo that was eaten alive by a prosecutor for their bloodlust postings on the internet. If you EVER pull that trigger, you’re fucked. And if you don’t, you’re fucked. You’ve back yourself into a corner. Nice going slick.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


First you cried “strawman”. When that didn’t work, you tried “apples and oranges”. Sorry snowflake, neither will fly. By your own position, you should not be behind the wheel of an automobile.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And if blowing the SOB away because he kept coming with the knife saves even one life, including my own then I guess I can  live with being an Asshole.


Odd. You’re all over this thread insisting the American people have no right to be armed. Now you’re changing your tune as soon as I proved you wrong.

This armed citizen prevented further loss of life, without taking the life of the knife wielding maniac. He’s a hero. You’re an internet Rambo.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Thank God for public servants who actually uphold their oath and the U.S. Constitution...


> “I’ve taken 3 public oaths, one in the US Army and Two as a police officer. All of them included upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States of America,” Culp wrote. “The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”


This is what a *real* American looks like. The polar opposite of the left.

Second Amendment ‘sanctuary city’? Washington police chief pushes back against anti-2A regulations


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Elected representative from the left proposes using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.


> Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.


Ladies & Gentlemen...this is how radicalized the left has become. Their elected representatives propose using nuclear weapons on any American citizen looking to exercise their constitutional rights.

Democrat Calls For Gun Confiscation, Suggests Nuking Americans Who Fight Back


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 18, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Basic common sense. So simple, only a progressive could be confused by it...
> 
> Crime Plummets After QuikTrip Stores Add Good Guys with Guns




You should highlight this with it's own thread......really annoy the anti gun asshats ....


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

2aguy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Basic common sense. So simple, only a progressive could be confused by it...
> ...


Go for it, 2A! Start a new thread around it.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Elected representative from the left proposes using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.


> Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.


Ladies & Gentlemen...this is how radicalized the left has become. Their elected representatives propose using nuclear weapons on any American citizen looking to exercise their constitutional rights.




 

Democrat Calls For Gun Confiscation, Suggests Nuking Americans Who Fight Back


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Elected representative from the left proposes using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.


> Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.


Ladies & Gentlemen...this is how radicalized the left has become. Their elected representatives propose using nuclear weapons on any American citizen looking to exercise their constitutional rights.



 

Democrat Calls For Gun Confiscation, Suggests Nuking Americans Who Fight Back


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Elected representative from the left proposes using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.


> Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.


Ladies & Gentlemen...this is how radicalized the left has become. Their elected representatives propose using nuclear weapons on any American citizen looking to exercise their constitutional rights.




 

Democrat Calls For Gun Confiscation, Suggests Nuking Americans Who Fight Back


----------



## P@triot (Nov 18, 2018)

Elected representative from the left proposes using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.


> Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.


Ladies & Gentlemen...this is how radicalized the left has become. Their elected representatives propose using nuclear weapons on any American citizen looking to exercise their constitutional rights.



 

Democrat Calls For Gun Confiscation, Suggests Nuking Americans Who Fight Back


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 19, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Elected representative from the left proposes using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.
> 
> 
> > Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.
> ...




Charles C. W. Cooke is great...


----------



## P@triot (Dec 15, 2018)

This is how left-wing ideology always ends. With the complete and total oppression of the people.


> Six years ago, the Venezuelan National Assembly, led by former President Hugo Chavez, enacted a law to disarm all citizens. Thousands of guns were seized by force, and now many citizens look back and regret that they gave up their ability to fight an oppressive regime, according to Fox News.


If only the left weren’t so against education, they would actually study (real) history and learn from it.

Venezuela took citizens' guns by force—now the people are regretful and helpless against oppression


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 15, 2018)

2aguy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Elected representative from the left proposes using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.
> ...



And you maroons talk about the lefts fake news.  Wow.  This one should make the list on the conspiracy area's number one list.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And you maroons talk about the lefts fake news.  Wow.  This one should make the list on the conspiracy area's number one list.


Bwahahahaha! Duh-ryl is attempting to proclaim an indisputable comment - captured on Twitter and *not* denied by the account owner - as "fake".

Desperate much, Duh-ryl? Or did you pull your usual shit and fail to read the article before commenting? Either way, you've shown the USMB community that you're a joke.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 22, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And you maroons talk about the lefts fake news.  Wow.  This one should make the list on the conspiracy area's number one list.
> ...



Nice post editing.  Another very sick thing you nutters do to cover up  the fact you are all completely nutz.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 28, 2018)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


There is no “editing” there, nitwit. Your posts are there for _everyone_ to see. You attempted to claim that a twitter post was “fake” even though the account owner themselves don’t deny the post.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 28, 2018)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...

Suspects try to steal $1,600 in tools from a local store. Then six armed customers surround them.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 28, 2018)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...

Police: 18-year-old fatally shot by LSU football player was attempting armed robbery


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Dec 28, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Wow, another Strump Fake News item.  You Strumpets sure keep going.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 1, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...

Off-duty officer, citizen, thwart potential church massacre early Sunday in Texas


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 1, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...
> 
> Off-duty officer, citizen, thwart potential church massacre early Sunday in Texas



You posted this twice.  And it still is not true.  Page not Found means they found it was untrue and took it down.  
Besides, most police forces require their cops to be armed at all times as they are technically "On Duty" at all times.  Your wet dream must be getting a bit dry and needed a boost.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 1, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You posted this twice.


No I didn't, dumb shit. Scroll back through this thread - you won't find it again. 


Daryl Hunt said:


> Besides, most police forces require their cops to be armed at all times as they are technically "On Duty" at all times.


Snowflake, what part of "*citizen*" do you not understand?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 1, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > You posted this twice.
> ...



You posted it two places, liar.  Your hero, the Orange Blimp would be proud of you.

And since it doesn't exist, you can claim it says anything your lying black heart says it does.  An Off Duty Cop is NOT a Citizen, you liar.  The Strumpster and Pawxsnews should give you some kind of award for this one.


----------



## H B Lowrie (Jan 1, 2019)

*Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*

God didn't have jack shit to do with it, some of these twits just think they're gods.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 1, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


You ignorant twitter LIAR, I posted it once in *this* thread. Man you are the definition of a _tool_. Let me guess - no wife? Yeah. Didn't think so.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Progressive Propaganda: The 2nd Amendment Edition

Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

Same message just in a different location.  Once again, you are using your Orange Deity and Pawxsnews truth.  They should give you some kind of award for this kind of lie.  You lie, get caught in the lie and then you start screaming that the one that bagged you is the one lying.  Well, color your face orange and tell more lies.


----------



## Lakhota (Jan 2, 2019)

Thank which God?  There are thousands.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 2, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Same message just in a *different* *location*.


Bingo, you dumb dillhole! Different location. Every discussion in this thread is about this thread. And it was posted *once* in this thread.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 2, 2019)

Lakhota said:


> Thank which God?  There are thousands.


Only in the mind of the ignorant left-wing parasite...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Same message just in a *different* *location*.
> ...



This thread, this thread.  I stated you posted the exact same message twice.  You did.  So you try and cover that fact up with a play on words.  You are a sorry piece of crap.  You must be a gradjueate of the Trump University with your Deploma filled out in Crayon.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 2, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I stated you posted the exact same message twice.


Yes you did. And since only this thread should be discussed in this thread, you *lied* (as usual). Never once did you state I posted it a second time somewhere _else_.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 2, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You must be a gradjueate of the Trump University with your *Deploma* filled out in Crayon.


#Irony


----------



## P@triot (Jan 2, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...

Police: Armed good Samaritan held drunk driver at gunpoint, 'probably prevented a tragedy'


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 2, 2019)

> Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms


God has nothing to do with weapons designed to kill human beings.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 2, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> > Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> God has nothing to do with weapons designed to kill human beings.


Clearly you have nothing to do with logic, reason, knowledge, or common sense.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > > Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms
> ...


Thank you for your feedback.

Unfortunately, that does nothing to counter the assumption.

An all-merciful, all-compassionate, all-loving God has *nothing* to do with weapons designed to kill human beings.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I stated you posted the exact same message twice.
> ...



I just love your orange portable goal posts.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 2, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



His God does.  Ours doesn't.  Only HIS God is allowed to design guns and nasty things to kill human beings and turn them over to HIM so he can be ready and able to kill all the rest of us people with the wrong Gods.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 4, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> An all-merciful, all-compassionate, all-loving God has *nothing* to do with weapons designed to kill human beings.


Want to bet, snowflake? He realized his children needed to be protected from unethical animals like _you_...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 5, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > An all-merciful, all-compassionate, all-loving God has *nothing* to do with weapons designed to kill human beings.
> ...



And my protection from you is an old prayer as old as the firearm itself.  Praise the Lord and pass the powder.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 5, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > An all-merciful, all-compassionate, all-loving God has *nothing* to do with weapons designed to kill human beings.
> ...


Whatever in the world are you talking about?

Show us - in either Testament - where God gave you the right to own firearms or to use them against your fellow human beings.

And, given that the covenants of the New override those of the Old, putting that into a _Love-Thy-Neighbor_ framework will prove challenging.

-----------

BTW... I'm a 'modified Second' fan myself; guaranteeing the right of ownership, while instituting some nationwide sensible controls.

But I'm more interested at the moment in you refuting my original "_God has nothing to do with guns_" remark.

So far, you're failing miserably, and flailing-about with ad hominem attacks in a juvenile, pathetic attempt to mask your incompetence.

But, it's time to let that go... you obviously don't run "deep enough" to demonstrate any skill or knowledge at that level.

Sux to be you.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The left spends their life in a perpetual state of confusion. God understood that the world would have evil assholes like _you_ roaming the Earth. He gave us the tools necessary to defend ourselves and our freedom. And he gave us his blessing to use those tools as necessary.

Now stop trying to hijack this thread into a theological discussion because you can’t dispute the U.S. Constitution or the results of a free people having a God-given right to keep and bear arms,


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> BTW... I'm a '*modified* Second' fan myself; guaranteeing the right of ownership, while instituting some nationwide sensible *controls*.


You support *control*? Gee...what a shock. I simply cannot convey how stunned I am by that “revelation”. It’s not like I identified that from the first post I ever saw from you.

Incidentally, all of us here on USMB support a “*modified*” 1st Amendment. The founders never intended for you to have a sophisticated communication system that could permit you to instantly reach the entire world with your propaganda. Therefore, sit down and shut the fuck up. Do not engage us here on USMB anymore. You want to share your thoughts? Break out your parchment paper, your quill “pen” and your ink well and write the people your thoughts.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW... I'm a '*modified* Second' fan myself; guaranteeing the right of ownership, while instituting some nationwide sensible *controls*.
> ...


Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ-on-a-Crutch, boy... what are you? ...a 12-year-old mind trapped in a 50-year-old body?

Mind your manners, child...

Yes, indeed, I am all in favor of a modified Second Amendment...

One that allows a very liberal ownership of firearms and ammunition...

Subject to several restrictions: universal background checks, licensing, registration, and original and refresher training per firearm class...

Far more generous than anything either the Euros or the Aussies have cooked up...

Time for the People to "well-regulate" the "militia" at-large...


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ...The left spends their life in a perpetual state of confusion...


Irrelevant.



> ...God understood that the world would have evil assholes like





> _you_ roaming the Earth...


Evil? Hardly. I don't routinely attack folks online, nor do I obstruct rationale controls for deadly weapons.



> ...He gave us the tools necessary to defend ourselves and our freedom...


Yep.



> ...And he gave us his blessing to use those tools as necessary...


Please show us, in the New Testament, where Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to kill your neighbor; in defense or offense.



> ...Now stop trying to hijack this thread into a theological discussion...


I'm not... *you* already made it one; go back and look at both the thread title and my original in this series.

You claim that God gave you the right to own firearms and that God supports your use of firearms.

I challenged you to serve-up something substantive and (scripturally) authoritative in support of your claim.

You failed - miserably - but that is to be expected of a lightweight such as yourself.

Failure noted.

You had your chance, and, predictably, you fell on your face, and started caterwauling and engaging in ad hominems.

Truly, the response of a lightweight.



> ... because you can’t dispute the U.S. Constitution...


Correct. I have far too much respect for the US Constitution. It's all in the interpretation, Sparky.



> ...or the results of a free people having a God-given right to keep and bear arms


*God* gave you the right to keep and bear arms?

I think not.

*Men* gave you that right.

_*Men*_ will *sustain* you in that right.

Men will eventually more sensibly restrict your exercise of that right as a matter of public safety.

*God*, however, has *nothing* to do with it.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Far more generous than anything either the Euros or the Aussies have cooked up...


Good think this is neither Europe nor Australia! Here is they key: nobody gives a fuck what you “support”. The U.S. Constitution does not care what you think. Neither do the American people.

And what did I just tell you? Stop engaging people on USMB. Your 1st Amendment rights do not extend to a sophisticated communication system, snowflake. Break out your quill pen and get to work.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ...because you can’t dispute the U.S. Constitution
> ...


Well, *We* *the* *People* have “interpreted” that _your_ 1st Amendment doesn’t extend to the internet. So sit down and shut up. The adults are trying to talk.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Stop hijacking your own thread, my little pi$$ant.

Either serve-up relevant content, pertaining to gun ownership (and God's involvement in that) or slink back into your hole.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Now stop trying to hijack this thread into a theological discussion...
> ...


Snowflake, “thank God” is a phrase. You know it. I know it. The moderators know it. This is your last warning. Your next attempt to hijack this thread into a theological debate will be reported, .


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Feel free to report away, Princess...

I trust the moderators here far more than I trust you...

Now, if you wish to reengage in intelligent conversation related to God and firearms, feel free...

I've already outlined my position, and all you've done so far is to retaliate with ad hominems and childish blathering...

Can you do any better?

I seriously doubt it, however...

That is merely one aspect of the discussion at-hand, but you seem intent on continuing to focus on that one aspect...

Very well... again... you claim (repeatedly herein) that God gave us the right to own and use firearms, and that he condones such use...

When challenged, so far, you've failed miserably to support that claim...

Your incompetence and inadequacy in this context is your cross to bear, not mine...

Public temper tantrums will not help you to make your case.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




I have the right to own any fucking firearm that I feel is necessary to not only defend me and mine but to also have them in case little commie fucks like those of your ilk ever support a commie coup...


Questions?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> ...I have the right to own any fucking firearm that I feel is necessary to not only defend me and mine...


Correct. Except for military grade weaponry. Oh, and, automatic weapons (in many jurisdictions). And other restrictions already extant.

It's all about how the Second is interpreted, mine good colleague, and that changes with the times, and the wishes of The People.



> ... but to also have them in case little commie fucks like those of your ilk ever support a commie coup...


You're hallucinating, and, quite possibly, paranoid. Would you pass an obligatory Mental Health Exam as part of firearms licensing?



> ...Questions?


A great many, in fact, but not from a non-player.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > ...I have the right to own any fucking firearm that I feel is necessary to not only defend me and mine...
> ...




You and those like you don't get to make that call.....though I am sure you wish you could.

Me? Pass a mental health exam? But of course but it's not a requirement nor would I comply if there was as I am not a de-facto employee of USA.INC.

I do hope, however, that you put your ass out in front to enforce compliance should you little commie fucks insist.

(snicker)

Jesus and self defense? Luke 22 verse 36....


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> It's all about how the Second is interpreted


Oh snowflake...there is nothing to “interpret”. Words have meaning. The U.S. Constitution was written in black and white and is law. Once something is law, it is set in stone (until legally altered). If laws were open to interpretation (as your extraordinarily ignorant ass claims), the people couldn’t possibly be compliant with law. A citizens interpretation could drastically differ from a legislators whose interpretation could drastically differ from a judges, and so on.

Thank you for illustrating for everyone why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_ - especially the U.S. Constitution. Ignorant wing-nut.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I question all of you people's sanity.  I'll have you know I have a paper from the VA Mental Health that states I am sane.  Okay, I wasn't always that way but that was just an after affect of the job.  But I am certified sane now and have the paper to prove it.  But the rest of you are suspected as totally off your friggin rockers until you prove otherwise.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > It's all about how the Second is interpreted
> ...



Okay, Cupcake.  We all should follow ALL the laws concerning firearms.  All of them including the local ones.  This includes the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments.  You don't get to pick and choose which ones you want to cherry pick to follow like you usually do.  So you want to lord the laws over someone else, fine.  Do so but don't expect me not to comment, cupcake.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> ...You and those like you don't get to make that call...


Those like me?

Do you mean loyal American citizens, who abide by the US Constitution and derivative law, and its judicial interpretation?

Actually, yes, We The People, do, indeed, get to make that call; through legislation and its enforcement.



> ...though I am sure you wish you could...


No need to "wish" for something already extant.



> ...Me? Pass a mental health exam? But of course but it's not a requirement...


Yet.



> ...nor would I comply if there was as I am not a de-facto employee of USA.INC...


I have no idea what USA INC is, but, insofar as abiding by the laws of the United States is concerned, you will, indeed, do so.



> ...I do hope, however, that you put your ass out in front to enforce compliance should you little commie fucks insist...


I am by no means a 'communist'.

Most Americans who favor more rational firearms control are not 'communists', either.

As a matter of fact, I spent a couple of years as a kid, wearing Uncle Sammy green, flipping the bird at the Soviets.

Your irrational characterization will get you nowhere outside of your own base.

As to being out front, for enforcement purposes... defy the laws of the United States and we'll talk about it.



> ....Jesus and self defense? Luke 22 verse 36....


Go back and look at it again.

He wanted a couple of his disciples to pick up a couple of swords, as a showpiece, to fulfill prophecy.

The very second that his Main Main... Simon-Peter... began to raise a weapon, The Master told him never to do so again.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> We all should follow ALL the laws concerning firearms.


One problem, ignorant little snowflake. The Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as thee highest law in the land. It trumps any and all federal, state and local laws. Therefore, all of those laws “concerning firearms” that you mentioned are unconstitutional. They are null and void.

Feel stupid yet? You _should_.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > We all should follow ALL the laws concerning firearms.
> ...



Once again, you are ignoring parts of the Constitution because it doesn't agree with your fantasy world.  I don't feel stupid but I do feel the need to be armed to protect myself and others from crackpots and crazies like you, cupcake. Hurry up with your Armed Revolution so we can get it over with and the rest of us can get on with our lives.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > ...nor would I comply if there was as I am not a de-facto employee of USA.INC...
> ...


Oh snowflake, listen to you trying to act all vicious dictator tough. 

No, Dale will not “abide” by your nonsense. Real Americans like him abide by the U.S. Constitution. When your idiot left-wing “laws” violate the constitution, people like Dale don’t abide by them. And you know what? We’re not even sorry that that pisses you off so much.

You’re deep anger over your inability to control others is palpable. Must be terribly frustrating to desire to be a dictator while being so insignificant in life!


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Hurry up with your Armed Revolution so we can get it over with and the rest of us can get on with our lives.


I don’t need to! The founders (God Bless them) did that for me. Then they handed me a constitution so I wouldn’t have to go through what they did.

You lose.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



One real problem.  You DO follow the laws.  Even the ones you disagree with.  Otherwise you wouldn't be posting in here now.  The Penal System has blocks on it's Internet Access.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Hurry up with your Armed Revolution so we can get it over with and the rest of us can get on with our lives.
> ...



Actually, there is nothing to win here.  But there is a lot to lose if you allow you to convince others to only follow the parts of the laws and Constitution that you agree with and disregard the rest.  But you have no choice but to follow it all, don't you cupcake.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Hurry up with your Armed Revolution so we can get it over with and the rest of us can get on with our lives.


And...not for nothing, Internet Rambo...but if there were an “armed revolution”, you wouldn’t have a life to get on with. People like me wouldn’t even have to get off the couch. The U.S. military is almost _exclusively_ right-wing. Never seen a special forces operator yet who was left-wing. So...careful what you wish for Internet Rambo.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> One real problem.  You DO follow the laws.  Even the ones you disagree with.  Otherwise you wouldn't be posting in here now.  The Penal System has blocks on it's Internet Access.


Because everyone who doesn’t follow a law is caught instantly and incarcerated? 

Good God, you are the _ultimate_ fuck’n tool.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Not according to various laws, you don't.  Including local laws.  I'll believe you when I see a jeep mounted Mah 
Deuce sitting in your front yard.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ...Oh snowflake...there is nothing to “interpret”...


Incorrect.

The United States Supreme Court has spent the past 229 years doing just that... interpreting the Constitution.

Interpretation of the Constitution is its Primary Mission... its _raison d'être_ ...its very reason for existence.



> ...





> Words have meaning...


They do, indeed.

But they do not exist in a vacuum... they exist alongside 'context'... their surroundings, metaphorically speaking.

And, as context changes, interpretations of the words change.



> ...The U.S. Constitution was written in black and white and is law...


Indeed. Nolo contendere.



> ...Once something is law, it is set in stone (until legally altered)...


Indeed. And one of the ways to 'legally alter' a law is for the courts to reverse themselves on an issue.



> ...If laws were open to interpretation (as your extraordinarily ignorant ass claims), the people couldn’t possibly be compliant with law...


Judges at all levels interpret law every day that courts are in session... every day.

The trick is, not to reinterpret too often.

So far, over the past 229 years under the current court system, compliance has not proven overly problematic.



> ... A citizens interpretation could drastically differ from a legislators whose interpretation could drastically differ from a judges, and so on...


Indeed.

Which is why the Judicial Branch exists; to render its interpretations, and to silence further effective challenge.



> ...Thank you for illustrating for everyone why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_ - especially the U.S. Constitution. Ignorant wing-nut.


There is very little about me that is Left Wing, and...

By the look of it, my own poor, amateurish level of competency in Constitutional matters exceeds your own by an order of magnitude.

I can be dumb as a box-o-rox sometimes, but I take comfort in the idea that my own 'ignorance' pales in comparison.

You're in over your head, boy... time to let it go.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




"Question" in one hand and take a shit in the other and see which one fills up first. One of many things about the leftard clown posse of sniveling commies that I find hilarious is the delusions of grandeur that afflicts them. 

Leftards honestly believe that those that don't buy into their bullshit have to be "crazy"......examples?

#1 Anyone that isn't on the same page as they are when it comes to hating any and all that sit outside of their "big tent".

#2 Those that don't believe in their "collectivism" and "greater good" Marxist bullshit

#3 Those that want no part of their "social engineering/virtue signaling/politically correct" agenda.

Hell, the leftard clown posse sufferers of "arrested development" that worship at the feet of this corporate construct called "gubermint" amuse and repulse me on a daily basis. Leftards are clowns sans the make-up and a rodeo or circus gig.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Actually, there is nothing to win *here*.


#Irony. Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Hurry up with your Armed Revolution so we can get it over with and the rest of us can get on with our lives.
> ...



Now you are saying you are special forces.  Imagine that.  Did you just finish watching Rambo once more and it got you to start fantasizing again?  At one time, I worked closely with those folks.  And there wasn't a hell of a lot of partisan discussion that ever came out of that camp.  So, Rambo wannabe, you can stop trying to pass yourself off as my equal.  You don't cut  the mustard.  But you probably just need more frosting.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> The United States Supreme Court has spent the past 229 years doing just that... interpreting the Constitution.


Please cite for us the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to “interpret” the U.S. Constitution itself.

Don’t worry...I’ll wait.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Thank you for the Confirmation.  _*THIS ONE IS CRAZY!!!!*_


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Dude...repeating what I say as if it were your own thoughts and words is on the level of a 1st grader. You sound like an idiot. The bolder blue sentence above proves you’re being an immature troll because you’re pissed off over the fact that you just got your ass handed to you.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > The United States Supreme Court has spent the past 229 years doing just that... interpreting the Constitution.
> ...


No need.

*All* judicial decisions involve both interpretation and application.

As implicit as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

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

Next batter, please.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE] ...Once something is law, it is set in stone (until legally altered)...
> ...



    

The courts are the judicial branch. Only the legislative branch can create, alter, or abolish law. It is not legal to create law from the bench. Good grief dude...this is basic 9th grade civic stuff. How do you now know this? You really are a special sort of ignorant.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > The United States Supreme Court has spent the past 229 years doing just that... interpreting the Constitution.
> ...



It actually goes back to the Articles of Confederation when the States courts were overturning the states passing laws the courts thought were contrary to the bill of rights and the Articles.  You are right, there is actually nothing in the constitution itself that gives the Supreme Court that right.  But tradition and customs do.  It's older than the very Constitution itself.  But you will find it in the Federalist Papers.  The Founding Fathers expected it to operate that way and, for the most part, it has since the day it was created.  Here is a fascinating read just for you, cupcake.
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Here is a summary of Marbury V Madison in 1803.

_*Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.*_

It could have been overruled by Congress even today with a simple majority vote but it never has been.  Talk about political suicide.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Ahahahahahaha!!! He couldn’t do it. One can always count on the left to cry “no need” when challenged to provide *proof* of something!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Here,let me check (bending over and looking behind me).    Nope, still there and hasn't been detached.  But I suggest you pull your head out yours and figure out why you have such a shitty outlook on life.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



But I did, cupcake.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> It actually goes back to the Articles of Confederation


Snowflake...we don’t operate under the “Articles of Confederation”. The moment the United States constitution was ratified by the states, the “Articles of Confederation” became null and void.


Daryl Hunt said:


> You are right, there is actually nothing in the constitution itself that gives the Supreme Court that right.


I know I’m right. Thank you for finally saying something accurate and intelligent.


Daryl Hunt said:


> But tradition and customs do.


Traditions and customs are *not* law.


Daryl Hunt said:


> Here is a summary of Marbury V Madison in 1803.
> 
> _Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that *American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.*_


Bingo! The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely has the power to strike down anything unconstitutional. That’s the reason for the entire existence. They do not, however, have the power to “interpret” the U.S. Constitution _itself_. The have absolutely zero authority to declare what the constitution “means”.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Um...no. No, you didn’t. In fact, you actually agreed with me. Here it is again for the class:


Daryl Hunt said:


> You are right, there is actually nothing in the constitution itself that gives the Supreme Court that right.


Tell us, how many voices do you hear in your head at any given time?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


God I love owning ignorant left-wing lunatics. Give a lefty enough rope and they will hang themselves. Then they run away. I loooooove when they say “no need” when challenged to provide proof to one of their idiotic claims.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > ...You and those like you don't get to make that call...
> ...






Kondor3 said:


> Do you mean loyal American citizens, who abide by the US Constitution and derivative law, and its judicial interpretation?



The U.S Constitution that was signed in September of 1787 or the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871 that established Washington, D.C  as the corporate headquarters of USA.INC? BTW, you can't be both an American citizen AND a U.S citizen.

"I have no idea what USA INC is, but, insofar as abiding by the laws of the United States is concerned, you will, indeed, do so"

And therein lies the irony as there is soooo much you have absolutely no clue about. USA.INC doesn't have "laws", they pass acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what is called "public policy". As far as you telling me that I WILL do "this or that" even if it infringes on my God given right to exist here because 50.0001 percent decided that one of those rights must be restricted? LOL! Yeah, you keep believing that. I didn't exchange my rights for privileges bestowed upon me by this "benevolent" corporate construct that you call "gubermint".

"I am by no means a 'communist'."

If it walks like a duck, quacks like one, has webbed feet and a bill? I don't need an expert to tell me what I see with my own eyes.

"Most Americans who favor more rational firearms control are not 'communists', either"

Good for them! They are free to adhere to those "restrictions" to their rights.....doesn't mean that I am obligated to join them. I have no doubt that their willingness to acquiesce to draconian rules is due to false flag staged shootings and attacks like what was done in Europe under "Operation Gladio"....keep the sheeple scared, play on their emotions and they will turn over more control like the DHS capstone drill in Newtown, Ct, the Boston bombing, the Pulse nightclub shooting, etc, etc....



"As a matter of fact, I spent a couple of years as a kid, wearing Uncle Sammy green, flipping the bird at the Soviets"

Were you armed with an army issued rifle then? If so, I am not impressed.

"Your irrational characterization will get you nowhere outside of your own base"


 I have no "base" and I have very few peers. I am not trying to win "converts". I simply provide information and smack on dumb asses like yourself that are utterly clueless.

"As to being out front, for enforcement purposes... defy the laws of the United States and we'll talk about it"

See my first comment and I have already stated very blatantly here that I will not comply with any act, statute, code or ordinance of USA.INC that restricts my rights in any way, shape, manner or form. So, when can I expect you to show up and "enforce"? 

Jesus doesn't expect his followers to be totally defenseless and he did pick up a whip and ran out the moneychangers that bought up shekels (that didn't have a pagan symbol on it) and then charged a premium for those wanting to donate to their temple. I find it hilarious how leftards lamely use the "Jesus" card in a pathetic attempt to get those to comply.

Allow me to sum it all up, I know what the "end game" is as I have connected enough of the dots to see the big picture. Your lame attempts at rebuttal do not "move or sway" me in the slightest.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



LMAO! And you just validated mine...thanks for playin'.

(snicker)


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




"So, Rambo wannabe, you can stop trying to pass yourself off as my equal"

ROTFLMAO! That is a bar set so low that a poodle could hop over with plenty of clearance.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > It actually goes back to the Articles of Confederation
> ...



In short,in order to do so, they have to be able to interpret the Constitution.  Let's face it, the last few words of the 2nd is ambiguous at best and can be interpreted more than one way by many.  And in the court systems it has been throughout the history of this nation.  You believe that it was right to rule that people of color could not own firearms?  How  about the 3/5th law?  The US has a history of interpreting the Constitution different as the time goes by.  You read the 2nd one way.  Another person reads it another way.  The Supreme Court reads it somewhere in between as does the various Federal Courts.  

You keep blaming the Supreme Court and the other courts that don't go your way.  You want to do something to change things?  Go after the ones that have not only the power but the obligation to change things.  Go after all the levels of the Legislation from local to the Federals.  The reason the 2nd amendment can be interpreted in so many ways is that it didn't keep up with the growth of the Federal Republic.   The size of the country outgrew it and the size of the weapons also outgrew it.  I don't advocate throwing it out but I do suggest we make it comply with the modern times.  The 2nd was outdated by 1898 when the weapons and the size of the Military the Feds needed became outdated.  The start was actually in 1858 when the first Walker Colt was introduced and it snowballed from there to some really nasty weapons and wars got bigger and bloodier.

I know you disagree.  But until this happens, one way or another, the courts will continue to have to interpret the 2nd because the Federal Congress is so fractured there is no way it could muster a 2/3rds vote to update it. In fact, they can't come up with 60 votes in the Senate to determine if it's raining outside or not.  And it's not just the snowflakers, it's also the cupcakes.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Did you know that the SCOTUS is incorporated? You can find it on the Dun and Bradstreet website. It even has to file a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report like all corporations do, "cupcake".....

(snicker)


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Wow, this one thinks we are playing some kind of tv game show.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Kicking your lame contentions to the proverbial curb is done with deftness and conciseness.....don't be hatin'.......


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Hey, watch your slurs.  I am a snowflake,  ask anyone.  I refuse to be lumped in with you cupcakes.  

Now that we have that settled.  You will have to come up with proof of what you are saying.  My research doesn't mention that SCOTUS is incorporated in any way shape or form.  But you will give us the goods on this one, right, cupcake?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 6, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I will admit that I am entertained at times by your stories.  Your stories remind me of something.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Will this do for starters???


Business Reports | Check Business Credit Scores & Ratings | D&B


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I don't advocate throwing it out but I do suggest we make it comply with the modern times.


The founders were brilliant men. They built in a system to achieve exactly what you are advocating. Convince people you are right and legally and properly amend the U.S. Constitution. Short of that, you don’t have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



The IRS, incorporated in a U.S territory...Trust #62

Business Reports | Check Business Credit Scores & Ratings | D&B


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I don't advocate throwing it out but I do suggest we make it comply with the modern times.
> ...




Daryl has called it a night......I just proved what I contended. He needs time to digest it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I don't advocate throwing it out but I do suggest we make it comply with the modern times.
> ...



Haven't you taken a look at our current government?  They can't find a 2/3rds to agree that it's 2019.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



It also lists the United States of America as well and the USofA is definitely NOT a corporation.  And every state.  None can be considered a Corporation.

As for your IRS claim.  Yes, that story is all over the place.  It's a crackpot story that's been around for decades.  If you follow it, it means the IRS is a corporation in Puerto Rico.  This whole line belongs in either conspiracy or "Who let the Nutcase out of the Nuthouse again".


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Yes.  Now is the time to keep our arms to stop the treasonous deep state


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



What you have proven is that you are a nutcase.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Yes.  Now is the time to keep our arms to stop the treasonous deep state



Go ahead.  Get that revolution started.  That way the rest of us can put an end to it and get on with our mundane lives.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

william104 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...


Wrong dead wrong

Just the opposite. The deep state has commited treason

Trump has the men to force this issue against the crooked deep state


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Trump is the new Andrew Jackson that the congress or deep state could not stop

Trump has the same most powerful people on his side


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

william104 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...



Be careful what you wish.  Have you taken a good look at pence?  Remember why most of us didn't vote for McCain?  Not because of McCain but there was an even chance his VP would become President.  I think if the Congress grows a pair like it is supposed to have they  can negate most of Trumps nonsense for the next couple of years.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> william104 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Yes, Trump did drain the swamp of all the Alligators.  The problem is, he replaced them with the even more fierce some Crocodiles.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Trump increased the senate for him during the midterms when usually both parts of congress loses opposite of the president

But now gas prices have dropped and much more help to workers with jobs and pay increase twice inflation

Trump will increase in power with the wise and powerful middle class   Same as Andrew Jackson


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> william104 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


But it's trump with the real power


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Wrong again dead wrong

The founders supporters are the same that supports trump

They also had a wisdom test for voters that they called a property test 

And would not let under 21 vote

Trump will bring a more accurate logic test for voters 

Trump will be the hero of the world


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Patriot is the winner !!!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > william104 said:
> ...


Only because congress keeps it's cajones in a jar on the upper right shelf and doesn't do it's friggin job.  You dinged Obama for taking charge with a do nothing Congress.  Well, Trump is doing the same thing just not as smart.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Just as long as he totally disregards the citizens of the United States.  But what else is new.  But Congress won't buy it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



The winner of what?  How many laws that he wants and can never have?  How many things he can't get his own way because the majority of the US Citizens won't allow it?  That the Federal Republic stands in spite of him?  Wow, if that's winning, go figure.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


I couldn't do what, Junior? Prove that the US Supreme Court has the power to interpret and apply law?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Sure, Princess, you go right on trying to sell the idea that the US Supreme Court does not interpret and apply law, every day.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> ...The U.S Constitution that was signed in September of 1787 or the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871 that established Washington, D.C  as the corporate headquarters of USA.INC? BTW, you can't be both an American citizen AND a U.S citizen...


If you have to explain it, you've already lost your audience. Silly explanation, by the way.



> ...there is soooo much you have absolutely no clue about. USA.INC doesn't have "laws", they pass acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what is called "public policy"...


So... law is *not* law, but merely "_public policy_"?

Tell that to a traffic cop, the next time he pulls you over, and see how far you get; "_It's not *law*, officer, merely 'public policy'. Buh-bye._" 



> ...As far as you telling me that I WILL do "this or that" even if it infringes on my God given right to exist here...


Incorrect. I am telling you that you *will* abide by the laws of the United States. *Guaranteed*.



> ... because 50.0001 percent decided that one of those rights must be restricted? LOL! Yeah, you keep believing that. I didn't exchange my rights for privileges bestowed upon me by this "benevolent" corporate construct that you call "gubermint"...


Ahhhhh... got it... that "sociopath" profile is beginning to come into focus.



> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A communist advocates good in common and the nationalizing of the means of production and forcible enactment of economic policies.

Although there are, indeed, some things that are best done collectively... as a guiding principle and modus operandi, I, too, reject communism.

Sane, rational controls on firearms ownership ( screening, licensing, registration, training, etc. ) have nothing to do with communism.



> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmmmm.... sociopathic, or paranoid? It's all a _Worldwide Joooo-ish Kornspiracy_, I tellz ya! 



> > ..."As a matter of fact, I spent a couple of years as a kid, wearing Uncle Sammy green, flipping the bird at the Soviets"...
> 
> 
> Were you armed with an army issued rifle then? If so, I am not impressed...


Yes. Never fired a shot in anger. Qualified expert with M14, Sharpshooter with M16 and .45 1911. Irrelevant.

The extent to which you are impressed (or unimpressed) is also irrelevant to the point at-hand.



> > ..."Your irrational characterization will get you nowhere outside of your own base"...
> 
> 
> I have no "base" and I have very few peers...


Oh, you're playing to the gun-owning segment of the audience, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

And, as to "_peers_", yes, the scarcity of "_peers_" in your case is self-evident, alright. My condolences.



> ...I am not trying to win "converts". I simply provide information and smack on dumb asses like yourself that are utterly clueless...


You tell 'em, Sparky.



> > ..."As to being out front, for enforcement purposes... defy the laws of the United States and we'll talk about it" ....
> 
> 
> See my first comment and I have already stated very blatantly here that I will not comply with any act, statute, code or ordinance of USA.INC that restricts my rights in any way, shape, manner or form. So, when can I expect you to show up and "enforce"?...


Tell it to the judge, son... tell it to the judge... if you walk away from the law enforcement encounter, that is.



> ...Jesus doesn't expect his followers to be totally defenseless and he did pick up a whip and ran out the moneychangers that bought up shekels (that didn't have a pagan symbol on it) and then charged a premium for those wanting to donate to their temple...


Jesus of Nazareth taught "Love Thy Neighbor" and "_Turn the Other Cheek_"; not "_Turn the Banana Clip Over_" .



> ...I find it hilarious how leftards lamely use the "Jesus" card in a pathetic attempt to get those to comply...


Me too. On the other hand, we have folks who are happy to poke holes in Right Wing Nutjob arguments using God in connection with firearms.



> ...Allow me to sum it all up, I know what the "end game" is as I have connected enough of the dots to see the big picture. Your lame attempts at rebuttal do not "move or sway" me in the slightest. Hope this helps!


I'm not trying to sway you. I'm merely poking holes in your arguments about the nature of US law, and God-and-firearms.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You lost in that debate


----------



## Rigby5 (Jan 7, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




How could someone question such a fundamentally established principle as to the purpose of the SCOTUS?

{...
*Article III*

Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
*...}

Article III


*


----------



## Rigby5 (Jan 7, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




How could it possibly be otherwise, than the the SCOTUS must interpret and apply law?


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Bought off congress and judges is the problem

All congress and supreme courts themselves and family and friends should be checked to see if they have received money


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > GreenAndBlue said:
> ...



The original idea he had was that the Supreme Court could not interperet the Constitution.  I shows that they could and showed him where it was on the books that allow it.  He only declared he won and you, being another strumpet, just agree with him.  he won nothing and is still wrong.  I just showed it wasn't in the Constitution but in a court ruling way back when that has never been overturned by Congress.  Yes, the Supreme court CAN make laws if the congress allows them to.  Funny how that works.

Now, go do your victory dance but it's pretty empty.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



And in the absence of Congress making a specific law, the Supreme Court can also make that law as well as the Executive Branch.   For the last 10 years of so, both the Supreme Court and the sitting Presidents have been put into a place where they have had no choice since Congress is a complete mess and can't even handle the tough decisions.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Bought off congress and judges is the problem
> 
> All congress and supreme courts themselves and family and friends should be checked to see if they have received money



Why, because they disagree with you?  I don't agree with you either so where is my bribe?


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Bought off congress and judges is the problem
> ...


 
Jealousy with lower logic makes for losing debates like withthis one losing


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


the crooks have learned to
Pay off congress and the Supreme Court

Only true patriots cannot be bought off


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > GreenAndBlue said:
> ...



You keep inflating your ego.  Doesn't bother me one bit.  I  think a nap is in order, it bothers me so much.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



And I suppose you are going to claim to be a true Patriot?  Replace Patriot with Taliban and the phrases are the same.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



The reason why you lose so many debates is low logic

That low logic brings in an issue that blocks you from learning 

Soon there will be a logic test for voting


----------



## P@triot (Jan 7, 2019)

william104 said:


> Also thank god for 'our' right to impeach a imposter and felonious so-called president tRump, who committed treason too many times as a Russian puppet and a antigovernment conspiring GOPer crony in violation of U.S. Constitutional law and the will of the majority.


1. This is completely off topic 

2. It has already been proven that there was *zero* "collusion" between Trump and the Russians

3. Collusion is not illegal anyway

4. It has also been proven that the collusion was between Hitlery Clinton and the Russians. *Fact*.

5. If you want to discuss that topic, there are tons of threads about it already. Either join one, jack-ass, or start your own.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


So that means *We the People* have spoken. If you can't get 2/3rd's of Congress and 3/4th's of the states, then accept the fact that *We the People* have spoken. That's how it works.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Well, Trump is doing the same thing just not as smart.


President Trump has *not* bypassed Congress or violated the U.S. Constitution one time yet. He has threatened to on a couple of occasions. But he hasn't done it.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Your government IS a corporation and I proved it. D&B is an accredited source for data on corporations and all corporations have to fill out a CAFR. The fact is that just because YOU can't wrap your pea-brain around it doesn't negate the facts. The journey taken to return to our feudal roots happened in small, incremental steps but the ball buster was the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of USA.INC and that is when Americans lost allodial rights to property and became mere tenets because FDR pledged aka "hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the shareholders of the foreign owned federal reserve bank (trustees) hold legal title.
The long and short of it is that in March of 1933, the federal United States hypothecated (pledged) all present and future properties, assets and the sweat equity labor of their "chattel property aka the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen that falls under the jurisdiction of the corporate headquarters of USA. INC to the Federal Reserve System.

What did USA.INC get in consideration? The Fed agreed to extend "credit" to USA.INC all the credit it wanted and just like any other debtor, USA.INC had to assign collateral and surety against the debt and that is us.They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations as collateral against THEIR debt. Research the gold confiscation of the people in exchange for notes of debt and compelled to do so when FDR changed some wording in the "Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917".

Also, reference the  Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; . H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress  session June 5, 1933. "Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only" as stated by James Traficant on the congressional floor in 1993....and here is the topping on this shit cake.

Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership"is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State".

Now, your owners want to restrict your ability to defend yourself because when the SHTF, the sheeple are going to be pissed and they will rebel.

Consider yourself "schooled".......


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 7, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > ...The U.S Constitution that was signed in September of 1787 or the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871 that established Washington, D.C  as the corporate headquarters of USA.INC? BTW, you can't be both an American citizen AND a U.S citizen...
> ...



"If you have to explain it, you've already lost your audience. Silly explanation, by the way"

Only silly to you because you lack understanding or knowledge as it pertains to our predicament and nature of the cage.

"So.. law is *not* law, but merely "_public policy_"?
 They are acts, statutes, codes, ordinances most of which have no victim to come forward and claim damages when you agree to "contract" by signing a citation. There is no need to be a prick to a police officer if pulled over for violating one of their corporate acts, statutes, codes, ordinances or "public policy" as remedies are and had to be provided. It is as simple as knowing how to sign your name and what to put after it and stating in writing before a notary republic that you do not wish to contract at this time (color of ink matters) and then sending it off  with the copy of the citation by certified mail because if there is no victim to come forward and claim that they suffered damages, then there is no crime.


"Hmmmm.... sociopathic, or paranoid? It's all a _Worldwide Joooo-ish Kornspiracy_, I tellz ya!"


Wow! Seems that not only are you ignorant but anti-semitic as well. Where you got the impression that I was blaming a certain race only God knows. What I can prove (given the preponderance of the evidence) that some of these mass shootings were made for TV news events and some events like OKC Murrah building bombing and the Aurora Batman movie theater shooting involved certain rogue elements of this corporate construct that is USA.INC. I would be more than happy to discuss any of these events in great detail, btw......


"Yes. Never fired a shot in anger. Qualified expert with M14, Sharpshooter with M16 and .45 1911. Irrelevant"

So, you were happy when you fired your government issued weapon that they feel you are no longer qualified to own since you are not serving their interests? Seems that you fall under the category of "useful idiot".

"Oh, you're playing to the gun-owning segment of the audience, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding"

LMAO! Those that own firearms and understand the importance of them certainly don't need me to explain it to them. What you seem to be worried about is that I stand in your way of lamely attempting to convince them that they should acquiesce and I am a "fly in the ointment" thus the pathetic "lame, flame game of yours.

"Tell it to the judge, son... tell it to the judge... if you walk away from the law enforcement encounter, that is"

Why would I have an encounter with a code enforcer unless he/she/they decided to attempt to enforce an unconstitutional statute? Believe me when I say this....I understand the repercussions and I am willing to stand up for a right that doesn't have a thing to do with a "benevolent" corporate entity that believes that they can persuade their "minions" to exchange their unalienable rights for "privileges" that can be taken away at their whim "for the public good" bullshit. What I asked (and you ducked and dodged from) was would you be willing to put your ass on the line and lead the charge in a "house to house" search for weapons that your beloved "gubermint" claim violates one of their statutes? I am betting that you would break out in assholes and shit yourself before that would ever happen.

"Jesus of Nazareth taught "Love Thy Neighbor" and "_Turn the Other Cheek_"; not "_Turn the Banana Clip Over_" .

Indeed, you can love them and pray for their souls if they attempt to harm your family before you send them home to see their maker. I have the feeling that a leftard like yourself would toss your beloved a pillow so she/he would be more comfortable during a sexual assault rather than intervening to protect...leftards are a bit wimpy sort.

"Ahhhhh... got it... that "sociopath" profile is beginning to come into focus"

Sociopath :a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Nope, doesn't describe me at all. Would you say the same thing about a German that wasn't onboard with the Nazi agenda and was "anti-social" towards them?  I have a conscience and a set of balls and I do not believe that this corporate entity should "rule" over us. I will be happy to continue your education. It's what I do.....

Hope this helps!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > GreenAndBlue said:
> ...



Oh really.  And who is responsible for making up these tests?  Are we going back to the 3/5ths Humans method we once had?  Is there going to be a skin color question?  How about a religion question.  Sorry, you failed because you are a Jews, Muslim, Catholic, fill in any religion except the one that WE approve.  The last time I checked, "All Men are created Equal".  You are going to have to change that to do what you and your ORange Diety wants to do.  Good luck with that.  Your logic test would be the first thing that would fail any logic test.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I assume that Corporate America with it's deep pockets have spoken through Advertising.  People are more like sheep than I care to admit.  They have been conditioned.  And not just the left but the right as well.  That part of our system is completely bastardized.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Trump is doing the same thing just not as smart.
> ...



Executive Orders cannot go against the Constitution,period.  But they can fill in the gaps left when Congress refuses to do their jobs.  Every President has to do this reqardless of party.  The ONLY reason the Trump hasn't crossed that line is, if he does, it might wake up Congress enough for it to start operating like it should for the first time in over 20 years.  But I even doubt that would jump start it.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




I would say FDR ordering the American people to turn in their real  money for paper notes of debt was unconstitutional........taking away allodial rights to property was unconstitutional.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



One of my old businesses is still in D&B.  It was never incorporated.  The only paperwork it ever filed was sales tax forms.  Meanwhile, another of my businesses that IS as Corporation is not in there at all.  D&B is a credit tracking business, nothing more.  It's supported by Creditors who benefit from the information D&B collects.  Having a DB Number doesn't mean you are a corporation.  It only means you have requested to be listed with them.  A Business or Corporation isn't automatically listed.  On my Sole Proprietor Business, I filled out a D&B form to get listed because it was just good business.  I won't go into why it was good business because if you don't understand exactly what D&B does then you won't understand why it's good business practice.

Now, go back to working for someone else.  Chances are, they know why being listed by D&B can be either a good thing or a bad thing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 7, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



FDR didn't do it on his own.  He had the support of the Congress.  Again, you aren't looking at the times.  At that time, the printed money was worthless.  Sort of like the Marks at the end of WWII where a wheel barrel full of marks couldn't buy a loaf of bread.  Our Federal Government in 1933 was faced with an armed revolution at the time.  They had to do some things fast to get confidence back into the general population.  I doubt if neither FDR or the Congress really agreed with everything they had to do but they knew it had to be done.  Or at least something drastic had to be done fast.  You really need to study history and look at the causes and effects instead of using the old scatter gun affect hoping you will actually hit something if you post enough crap.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



The ALL CAPS name is the key....ever driven into a town and seen the sign "Entering Corporate Limits"? It means you are leaving the corporate jurisdiction of the county and entering the corporate limits of the town thus subject to their jurisdiction. I read the CAFR of HOUSTON TEXAS. INC and found that they had enough liquid assets (not counting stock holdings) that could pay for the expenses of the city for seventeen years without collecting one time in property taxes and other fees like citations.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 7, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Dude, you are 100 percent WRONG!!!!!  Our monetary system wasn't fiat based in 1933. The people were forced to turn in a real specie in the form of gold which has an intrinsic value in return for paper notes of debt. A dollar is actually a unit of measurement as in so many grains of gold, silver or a combination of both. Remember when coinage was made of real silver? The Weimar Republic's printing of too much of their currency was after WWI. You are factually deficient but I have GIVEN you the historical documents....they are not MY words, my thoughts or opinions. If you understand even basic English, it's all right there.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 8, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Keep  tap dancing.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 8, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 8, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I do hope you handle your guns better than you handle this message base.  Looks like it went off by accident again.  But at least no one was maimed, killed or injured.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 9, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I proved my contentions with documentation while you cling to bullshit. USA.INC and it's subsidiaries would not have to fill out a CAFR if it wasn't incorporated and operating under the UCC. I also have serious doubts that you ever owned a business that would benefit you by "incorporating".....  mowing lawns or shoveling/snow blowing sidewalks and driveways doesn't require "incorporating". (snicker)

The beautiful part of all of this is that limp-wristed leftists such as yourself will never have enough power to compel me to comply with their demands. I gave Barrypuppetcare the double middle finger salute and didn't comply and any "gun legislation" that these  commie fucks in Congress believe they can impose will be met with the same response...are we clear, lil fella?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 9, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



There are hundreds of thousands of Corporations not listed in D&B and hundreds of thousands of sole proprietorships that are listed.  The only thing you have proven is that you will say anything, no matter how stupid, just to try and prove your superiority.  Well, idjit, you ain't exactly bright.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 10, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Nope, I have proven that your beloved "gubermint" is a corporate entity that is under the Uniform Commercial Code of commerce i.e "Statutory Law".  The only "stupid" one (as well as ignorant) in this exchange is you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 10, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You only proved it was listed in D&B, nothing more.  
DCRA

When I searched this DB for the Unites States of America I came up with 

*No Results Found*

Then I checked for the Supreme Court of the United States and got the same results.  Funny how that works.  Now for the diagnosis.  Trump gets the same one.  Since you seem to be running neck and neck with him then it's past Sociopath and well into Narcissism.  Here is the definition for both of you.


Profile of the Sociopath

_*Glibness and Superficial Charm *_
_*Manipulative and Conning 
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. *_
_*Grandiose Sense of Self 
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." *_
_*Pathological Lying 
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. *_
_*Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt 
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. *_
_*Shallow Emotions 
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. *_
_*Incapacity for Love *_
_*Need for Stimulation 
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. *_
_*Callousness/Lack of Empathy 
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. *_
_*Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature 
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. *_
_*Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency 
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. *_
_*Irresponsibility/Unreliability 
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. *_
_*Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity 
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. *_
_*Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle 
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. *_
_*Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility 
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily. *_
_* 
Other Related Qualities: *_


_*Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them *_
_*Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them *_
_*Authoritarian *_
_*Secretive *_
_*Paranoid *_
_*Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired *_
_*Conventional appearance *_
_*Goal of enslavement of their victim(s) *_
_*Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life *_
_*Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love) *_
_*Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim *_
_*Incapable of real human attachment to another *_
_*Unable to feel remorse or guilt *_
_*Extreme narcissism and grandiose *_


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 10, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




LMAO! HOLY SHIT!?!?!?!?!?!? Did you you put in the all caps version, moron???? I did and you can find every city, state and county as an incorporated entity.

BTW, your lame attempt to "label" me with a term like "sociopath"  only shows how badly I have gotten under your skin. I exhibit NONE of those traits. The sole reason for my postings here is to empower people and encourage them to stand up for their right to exist instead of being doormats and accepting "privileges" that can be taken away as if we were small children to this tyrannical system of corporate "governance". You are simply pissed that I have the unmitigated gall to point out the fact because it destroys your illusion.....tough shit, little Daryl. Grow up....learn, grow, evolve.......


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 10, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Pissed, Me?  Hell, I love talking with the  clinically insane.  It's fun.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 10, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



LOL! Daryl SEZ????? "I just know that you are insane because you question my beloved gubermint that loves and protects the ever lovin' shit out of us!!!!!!"

You are a clown, Daryl.......you may not have a rodeo or circus gig and you don't get hired to perform at birthday parties but an unemployable clown is still a clown nonetheless.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 10, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I work at my job threw deep dilegence.  I show up every day and report to work.  I never question the supervisor......Oh Wait........I'm retired and suck off the Guvmint Tit.  I draw two govmint retirement pay so I require that tit to be at least a Double D.  That means that I did work and work hard for a lot of years.  So keep working and paying those taxes.  I thank you for your contribution.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 10, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




"Da gubermint" hires thousands upon thousands of clowns, Daryl.........at least you admit that you are beholding to them thus your undying loyalty. Don't bite the hand that feeds you...even if that "feed" is via picking the pockets and stealing from others. That's quite a moral compass you navigate by....LOL!


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You only proved it was listed in D&B, nothing more


Which you claimed “wasn’t” the case. As always, DS has owned you. You’re inability to admit when you are wrong is sad. It’s also the trait of an immature and insecure male. No wonder your single.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I work at my job *threw* deep *dilegence*. I draw *two govmint retirement pay*


Bwahahaha! Man, you really are the quintessential government employee. 

First of all, you illiterate buffoon, it’s “*through* deep *diligence*”. The word “threw” means to throw something in past-tense. The word “through” means continuance.

Second of all, “dilegence” is spelled “diligence” you illiterate nitwit.

Third, “I draw two government pay” is illiterate. Two is plural, while pay is singular.

No wonder you worked for the government. You wouldn’t last a week in the private sector. The first illiterate email you sent would result in your termination.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I work at my job *threw* deep *dilegence*. I draw *two* *govmint* *retirement* *pay*
> ...


Man alive is he proof of _that_...


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I work at my job *threw* deep *dilegence*. I draw *two govmint retirement pay*. That means that I did work and work hard for a lot of years.


Uh....no Duh-ryl. What that means is that you had a cushy government job that required you to produce 0 results because you were protected by an ignorant, lazy, and greedy union. It also means you were overcompensated (hence the double pension).


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2019)

God has nothing to do with firearms, however...

Man does...

Men crafted the US Constitution...

Men interpret and apply the Constitution routinely...

Interpretations change with the passing years and the needs and will of The People and their Republic...

This applies to gun-control just as much as any other subject matter covered by the US Constitution...

All it takes is one Test Case in which the US Supreme Court reverses some earlier decision, and gun-control is back on the table...

And, if the present-day SCOTUS is more Right-leaning than Left, well, as History measures time, well... the pendulum continues to swing...

Some of the most desirable or needful societal reforms end-up being a multi-generational pursuit...

It's just a matter of time until the pendulum swings the other way...

And keeping the faith, and remembering, until that materializes.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2019)

To effect practical gun-control without amending the US Constitution...

It will be necessary to help the "militia" (at-large, the citizenry) to become "well regulated" (with respect to firearms)...

To do that, uniformly for all citizens of the Union, the States should all be playing to the same standards and policies...

Time for the Feds to take the lead on this.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Men interpret and apply the Constitution routinely...


Which is 100% illegal/unconstitutional. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize the U.S. Supreme Court to “interpret” the U.S. Constitution _itself_. You would know that if you weren’t so astoundingly ignorant.



Kondor3 said:


> Interpretations change with the passing years and the needs and will of The People and their Republic...


If it were the “will of the people” there would be a legal and proper amendment to reflect that. The fact is, it is not the “will of the people” but rather the will of the anti-American fascists (such as yourself) who cannot accept a limitation of power or the fact that *We* *the* *People* have spoken.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> To effect practical gun-control without amending the US Constitution...


Boom. There it is. The fascist wants to achieve his oppressive dreams through executive fiat because he knows that *We* *the* *People* will *never* permit an amendment restricting our *rights*.


Kondor3 said:


> It will be necessary to help the "militia" (at-large, the citizenry) to become "well regulated" (with respect to firearms)...


The 2nd Amendment could not be more clear: ...the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of some imaginary “well regulated militia”. You lose.



Kondor3 said:


> Time for the Feds to take the lead on this.


Good luck with that, considering “the feds” (not capitalized you illiterate nitwit) fall under the executive branch - which falls under *President* *Trump*.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ...you illiterate nitwit...


Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, child...

I engage in thoughtful advocacy for an adequate, practical and generous control of firearms in this country...

You engage in parroting of dogma and ad hominem attacks where none are offered...

The _countering_ of ad hominems, however, is righteous...

Little twit.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 12, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I am part of the reason you feel you have the right to say what you do.  Freedom isn't free.  Someone has to always pay the the price for freedom.  Some more than others.  You are just a freeloader.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> I engage in thoughtful advocacy for an adequate, practical and generous control of firearms in this country...


I advocate for constitutional government. So only one of us supports a lawful government/society.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 12, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > I engage in thoughtful advocacy for an adequate, practical and generous control of firearms in this country...
> ...



You advocate only those lines that you think support your little Fantasies.  Either support it all or move to Yemen where the laws are more along the lines that you want.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > I engage in thoughtful advocacy for an adequate, practical and generous control of firearms in this country...
> ...


You advocate for Constitutional rule as it has existed in the past and present, in which many more people *die*.

I advocate for Constitutional rule as it will exist in the not-too-distant future, in which many more people will *live*.

You will still have your guns.

You will merely have to comply with standardized nationwide vetting, registration, licensing, training and sale/transfer criteria.

Rather like commercial truck drivers needing to comply with nationwide C(ommercial) D(rivers) L(icense) requirements per category.

It's the moral thing to do, with objects designed primarily to kill fellow human beings, as dozens of thousands die from their misuse.

It's the sane and rational thing to do.

It will get done.

Irrevocably.

Sooner rather than later.

And then all this childishness will stop.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You advocate only those lines that you think support your little Fantasies.  Either support it all or move to Yemen where the laws are more along the lines that you want.


I do support the entire constitution. Now hush. The adults are trying to have a conversation.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Thank God for her *right* to keep and bear arms...

Elderly woman shoots and kills intruder then suffers heart attack, won't face charges


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> You advocate for Constitutional rule as it has existed in the past and present, in which many more people *die*.


The U.S. Constitution never promised you security, scared little snowflake. It promised you liberty. Including the *liberty* to keep and bear arms.



Kondor3 said:


> I advocate for Constitutional rule as it will exist in the not-too-distant future, in which many more people will *live*.


Yeah...good luck with that.



Kondor3 said:


> You will still have your guns.


Oh, I know. There is literally no scenario where I don’t have my firearms. None. Only an idiot (ie Dumbocrats) who is too ignorant to learn from history (ie Dumbocrats) would surrender their firearms.



Kondor3 said:


> You will merely have to comply with standardized nationwide vetting, registration, licensing, training and sale/transfer criteria.


Want to bet? 



Kondor3 said:


> It's the moral thing to do, with objects designed primarily to kill fellow human beings, as dozens of thousands die from their misuse.


As the saying goes, the road to *hell* is paved with “good” intentions. One need only look at the hell the left creates to confirm that reality.



Kondor3 said:


> It's the sane and rational thing to do.


Only in the mind of the ignorant coward. The educated knows it is the ignorant and irrational thing to do.



Kondor3 said:


> It will get done.


Yeah...good luck with that.



Kondor3 said:


> Irrevocably.


Bwahahaha!



Kondor3 said:


> Sooner rather than later.


Yeah...good luck with that.



Kondor3 said:


> And then all this childishness will stop.


I don’t see you ever stopping this childishness. I really don’t.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> You will merely have to comply with standardized nationwide vetting, registration, licensing, training and sale/transfer criteria.


Yeeaahh....um....just one teeny, tiny problem there, sparky. It is actually illegal to tell a woman it’s illegal to get pregnant _after_ she is already pregnant. So you see, even in your fascist, anti-constitutional, oppressive pipe-dreams, I wouldn’t have to do any of that. I already own an impressive arsenal of firearms. I would be *grandfathered* in, as legislation cannot apply retroactively. Oops.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Rather like commercial truck drivers needing to comply with nationwide C(ommercial) D(rivers) L(icense) requirements per category.


Actually it is rather unlike that, since there is no constitutional *right* to commercial truck driving.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 13, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > You advocate only those lines that you think support your little Fantasies.  Either support it all or move to Yemen where the laws are more along the lines that you want.
> ...



Let me guess, No Dog, No Indians and Especially, no Irish allowed.  And Women, Women should never be heard other than announcing that dinner is ready, right?  We all should look forward to the turning back the clocks to that time.  Tell me, how you going to fare in when that calendar is reset?  Or are you just going to invent a new reality.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...

Neighbor who came to Jayme Closs' aid: 'We were armed and ready' for suspect to come looking


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 13, 2019)

Thank the pe


P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded




Thank the CONSTITUTION which was written by MEN.

There is no god.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 13, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...
> 
> Neighbor who came to Jayme Closs' aid: 'We were armed and ready' for suspect to come looking



My God, I might need a Nuclear Weapon.  I must stand armed and ready at all times.  Get a friggin grip.  Rather than trying to stop all the bad guys, it's better to stop the fake panic.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Thank the CONSTITUTION which was written by MEN. There is no god.


Who created those great men?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...
> ...


So the Jayme Closs story is “fake” now?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I must stand armed and ready at all times.


That’s what a real man and true American does. But a parasite like you wouldn’t know anything about that. So keep whining.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> My God, I might need a Nuclear Weapon.  I must stand armed and ready at all times.


Is the Dumbocrat coming unglued over a thread filled with endless examples of armed citizens preventing serious crimes?

Awe...it’s ok ‘lil buddy. Hang in there.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And Women, Women should never be heard other than announcing that dinner is ready, right?  We all should look forward to the turning back the clocks to that time.


Not at all surprising coming from the side that has waged a war on women since the beginning of time. The left is filled with impotent misogynists.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 13, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I must stand armed and ready at all times.
> ...



I must stand armed and ready to prevent you from destroying America.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 13, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And Women, Women should never be heard other than announcing that dinner is ready, right?  We all should look forward to the turning back the clocks to that time.
> ...



Take a good look at the representatives in the House versus the ones in the Senate.  It pretty well means that you are lying out your ass once again.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 21, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Take a good look at the representatives in the House versus the ones in the Senate.


Yeah...take a look. Take a look at history while you're at it. Dumbocrat JFK...cheated on his wife 24x7. Dumbocrat LBJ...cheated on his wife 24x7. Dumbocrat Bill Clinton...cheated on his wife 24x7.

Republican Ronald Reagan...._adored_ his wife. Republican George H.W. Bush....adored his wife. Republican George W. Bush...adored his wife.

You can't rewrite history, no matter how hard you try you communist tool.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 21, 2019)

Thank God for his *right* to keep and bear arms.


> A Houston homeowner single-handedly shot at least four suspected burglars and killed three of them when they tried to break into his home on Saturday, KHOU-TV reported.


A right that idiot progressives want to strip you of so they can turn you into victims.

Houston homeowner shoots burglars attempting to break in, kills three


----------



## P@triot (Jan 21, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I must stand armed and ready to prevent you from destroying America.


Snowflake...you couldn't stop a puppy from peeing on your shoe. Just stop with the internet Rambo routine already. All we're doing is laughing at you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 21, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Take a good look at the representatives in the House versus the ones in the Senate.
> ...



So you change the subject.  So kind or your whiteness.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 21, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I must stand armed and ready to prevent you from destroying America.
> ...



It's not me that keeps bringing up the new and improved Armed Revolution, there cupcake.  Of course, first, you would have to make sure that the rest of us are unarmed first.  Glad to know that that just won't happen.  But you can try anyway.  We stay armed to protect us from your "Revolutionaries" and to protect the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States from Terrorists like you.  Do you hear Piccolo music?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jan 21, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Take a good look at the representatives in the House versus the ones in the Senate.
> ...



There is no reason to believe republican presidents were not also taking advantage of their position of power, for sex.
Reagan was divorced and not known for fidelity, and Bush 41 was known for grabbing ass.
Nor is there any evidence that humans are supposed to be monogamous.
No other primates are.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jan 21, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for his *right* to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> > A Houston homeowner single-handedly shot at least four suspected burglars and killed three of them when they tried to break into his home on Saturday, KHOU-TV reported.
> ...



I am against any gun control, but I do not believe in cheering 3 deaths, no matter who or why.


----------



## Lesh (Jan 21, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Take a good look at the representatives in the House versus the ones in the Senate.
> ...


Reagan? WHich wife? You want a list of Republicans who DIDN'T treat their wives so well?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 22, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for his *right* to keep and bear arms.
> ...


I do.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 22, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Nor is there any evidence that humans are supposed to be monogamous. No other primates are.


Thank God we’re *not* primates.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 22, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> to protect the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States from Terrorists like you.


Stop projecting. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re already on record here regarding your contempt for the 2nd Amendment, the U.S. Constitution, and the United States.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 22, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > to protect the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States from Terrorists like you.
> ...



Because you say so.  Actually, the United States, the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution are all doing just fine in spite of you and we guard against you tearing them down to the ground.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 26, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Because you say so.  Actually, the United States, the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution are all doing just fine in spite of you and we guard against you tearing them down to the ground.


Stop projecting. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re already on record here regarding your contempt for the 2nd Amendment, the U.S. Constitution, and the United States.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 26, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Because you say so.  Actually, the United States, the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution are all doing just fine in spite of you and we guard against you tearing them down to the ground.
> ...



No,  you are on record saying that I am on record saying all kind of crazy things.  What's next, you just keep making shit up.


----------



## Markle (Jan 26, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> I am against any gun control, but I do not believe in cheering 3 deaths, no matter who or why.



Plenty of reason to celebrate cheering the deaths of three criminals.  Think about the effect that will have on other criminals!  Does this house have an occupant willing to defend themselves and blow me away?  How about that liquor store, or the couple walking in the parking lot?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 27, 2019)

This is a good example of why *We* *the* *People* will never allow assholes like Daryl Hunt to disarm us.

Venezuela took citizens' guns by force—now the people are regretful and helpless against oppression


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 27, 2019)

P@triot said:


> This is a good example of why *We* *the* *People* will never allow assholes like Daryl Hunt to disarm us.
> 
> Venezuela took citizens' guns by force—now the people are regretful and helpless against oppression



I would only disarm you.  Kooks with guns is never a good thing.  Of course, I would use Due Process to do it as per the Constitution of the United States.  You remember that, the thing you keep trying to use for your toilet paper.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 27, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good example of why *We* *the* *People* will never allow assholes like Daryl Hunt to disarm us.
> ...


----------



## joaquinmiller (Jan 27, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Nor is there any evidence that humans are supposed to be monogamous. No other primates are.
> ...



What backward school or ignorant hate radio jock told you that?


----------



## pismoe (Jan 27, 2019)

there4eyeM said:


> Nukes!


-------------------------------------------   NUKES are Theatre or Area weapons and the thinking is that the American people have the RIGHT to have all weapons that the Common USA Combat soldier has issued to him  '4eye' .


----------



## joaquinmiller (Jan 27, 2019)

pismoe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Nukes!
> ...



Just keep your M-60, grenades and rocket launcher away from the kiddies.  You don't want to find a two-year-old humping the Pig.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good example of why *We* *the* *People* will never allow assholes like Daryl Hunt to disarm us.
> ...


Duh-ryl once again admits that he would disarm anyone who doesn’t bow to his ideology. He’s also admitting yet again that he abhors the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

joaquinmiller said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Wait...you can’t tell the difference between primates and people?!?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...


> A suspected robber is dead after allegedly trying to rob a Family Dollar in Dekalb County, Georgia, and ignoring the customer who was armed behind him during the altercation.


Another crime averted because the 2nd Amendment was upheld in Georgia.

Robber points gun at Family Dollar employees — his last mistake was ignoring an armed customer behind him


----------



## joaquinmiller (Jan 30, 2019)

P@triot said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I'm a primate.  You're a primate.  Assuming you're a hominid, that is.  If you're from Kolob or something, all bets are off.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

joaquinmiller said:


> I'm a primate.  You're a primate.


I can't tell if you're joking or if you _actually_ believe that...


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

joaquinmiller said:


> I'm a primate.  You're a primate.


This is a primate:


 

This is a person:


----------



## joaquinmiller (Jan 30, 2019)

P@triot said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a primate.  You're a primate.
> ...



There's a good fella.  I'm sure someone loves you just as you are.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 30, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no reason to believe republican presidents were not also taking advantage of their position of power, for sex.
> Reagan was divorced and not known for fidelity, and Bush 41 was known for grabbing ass.
> Nor is there any evidence that humans are supposed to be monogamous.
> No other primates are.


This is all true.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 30, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> I am against any gun control, but I do not believe in cheering 3 deaths, no matter who or why.


I agree.  

I can't imagine the trauma caused to the survivors of the incident.  The shooter will undoubtedly feel deep remorse, despite the shooting being justified.  

There can be nothing but a whole lot of suffering from this incident.  Still, it is justified.   The silver lining in all this may be that others will think twice before doing something stupid, but I have little hope.

.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

joaquinmiller said:


> There's a good fella.  I'm sure someone loves you just as you are.


I’m sure somebody wishes you were back on your meds.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 7, 2019)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...

The Latest Crime News Provides Evidence in Favor of Armed Citizens


----------



## P@triot (Feb 9, 2019)




----------



## P@triot (Feb 9, 2019)

Another armed citizen prevents another crime...

WATCH: Son Holds Burglary Suspects at Gunpoint Outside Parents' Home


----------



## P@triot (Feb 10, 2019)

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms...


> "I'm proud to say I'm a constitutional sheriff and I'm just not going to enforce an unconstitutional law," Helton said. "My oath prevents me from doing that."


And thank God for elected officials who actually uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, like Sheriff Helton.

New Mexico sheriffs take defiant stand against state's new gun control legislation


----------



## P@triot (Mar 5, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms. There is a reason the left so desperately wants to disarm the American people (hint: the thugs are on the left)...

Crooks pull guns on pregnant woman, boyfriend and force them into apartment — but boyfriend has surprise waiting


----------



## P@triot (Mar 11, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...


> February has produced even more evidence that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is not an anachronism that no longer deserves constitutional protection, but a vital tool safeguarding individual liberty.


Facts trump the left’s feelings.

New Cases of Armed Citizens Stopping Criminals in February


----------



## P@triot (Mar 19, 2019)

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms...

Man walks into his house, intruder exits room 'yelling and screaming.' The next sound is the homeowner firing his gun.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 2, 2019)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. Every single day in America, lives are saved and crimes are averted thanks to that right.


> Phoenix police said two men tried to enter the house just after 1 a.m. when the homeowner shot them both, the outlet reported. One of the men, identified as 34-year-old Michael Ahumada, *was killed*, AZfamily reported. The other man, 33, was taken to a hospital where he's listed in *critical* but stable *condition*, the outlet said.


This could not have gone any better. Armed citizen safe. Dirt-bag #1 dead (preventing future crimes, protecting potential victims, and saving tax payers a fortune). Dirt-bag #2 in critical condition (he won’t be bothering anyone for a long time).

Homeowner issues bold warning to crooks after intruder's fatal miscalculation: 'If they come in, better come in ready'


----------



## P@triot (Apr 15, 2019)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms....


> Police said those three employees were armed — and they shot at the suspects, WEWS said. De'Carlo Jackson, 24, was shot six times... Officers found him unconscious with a faint pulse lying face-up on the floor with a loaded gun still in his right hand. Jackson was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead, WEWS reported.


There is a reason the left so desperately wants to disarm the American people (hint: the thugs are on the left). One less thug in the world thanks to our *right* to keep and bear arms.

Armed robbers order Taco Bell workers to floor at gunpoint — but victims serve up a deadly surprise


----------



## P@triot (Apr 19, 2019)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. Every single day in America, lives are saved and crimes are averted thanks to that right.


> About 20 minutes later, Victory Mbeng entered a Lanham hospital with a gunshot wound and died of his injuries a short time later, the station added.


This could not have gone any better. Armed citizen safe. Dirt-bag dead (preventing future crimes, protecting potential victims, and saving tax payers a fortune).

Armed man kicks down front door of house in broad daylight. Armed homeowner makes intruder pay ultimate price.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 14, 2019)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. You'll *never* see a mass shooting at any of the Florida schools that take advantage of this right.

Florida schools can arm teachers under new law


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 14, 2019)

Once a thread dies-out, it is considered 'good manners' to let it rest in peace, eh?


----------



## miketx (Jun 14, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Once a thread dies-out, it is considered 'good manners' to let it rest in peace, eh?


Liberals love dying unless it's them.


----------



## cwise76 (Jun 14, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. You'll *never* see a mass shooting at any of the Florida schools that take advantage of this right.
> 
> Florida schools can arm teachers under new law


Holy shit are you one ignorant piece of work


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 14, 2019)

Before the 1990s, all schools had some armed staff.
As en loco parentis, school staff need to be prepared for all contingencies they need to protect from.
For some school staff to not be armed would be as irresponsible as for any parents in bear country to not be armed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 15, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Consequently, there are in fact limits on the type of weapons you may have.


Wherever the bleeding edge of that limit may be, the 2nd protects our right to own a firearm in common use for traditional legal purposes - said protection extends to all such bearable arms, a ban on which violates the constitution under level of scrutiny.

Funny how you cannot bring yourself to tell the full truth re: _Heller_.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 15, 2019)

Camp said:


> Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?


Why do you refuse to understand your interpretation of the 2nd is invalid?


----------



## NoVote (Jun 15, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you refuse to understand your interpretation of the 2nd is invalid?



HAHAHAHA Kommie.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Consequently, there are in fact limits on the type of weapons you may have.
> ...




Not only that....but to really burn their rear ends.....Scalia, in the follow up in Friedman v Highland Park, where he wrote a dissent because the Court refused to hear the case......wrote that the AR-15 in particular was a protected weapon under the Constitution.....or as clayton would say, under current 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence.........and Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller....protected all weapons in common use for lawful purposes....

funny how clayton never refers to this case.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 

*The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. *

*Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.*


 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 


*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. *

*Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *


----------



## ph3iron (Jun 15, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. You'll *never* see a mass shooting at any of the Florida schools that take advantage of this right.
> 
> Florida schools can arm teachers under new law


Be careful what you wish for.
Never know what those dreaded Muslims may do.
When was the last time you were in hand to hand again?
Still sucking off your commie benefits?


----------



## ph3iron (Jun 15, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms....
> 
> 
> > Police said those three employees were armed — and they shot at the suspects, WEWS said. De'Carlo Jackson, 24, was shot six times... Officers found him unconscious with a faint pulse lying face-up on the floor with a loaded gun still in his right hand. Jackson was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead, WEWS reported.
> ...


Really?
Is this what info wars tells you?
I don't know one person right or left who is for giving up our guns.
Who do you communicate with?
The white extremists?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 21, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Be careful what you wish for. Never know what those dreaded Muslims may do.


Muslims are cowards who fear firearms. That’s why it’s the _one_ faith the atheist heathen leftists embrace.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 21, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> I don't know one person right or left who is for giving up our guns.


Ah yes...the favorite line of the idiot leftist as soon as they get done screaming “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn in your guns”.

(Psst...might want to Google that quote, genius)


----------



## Ridgerunner (Jun 21, 2019)

This is for you cyberly challenged progressives...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 22, 2019)

The left better damn well *demand* that automobiles be outlawed _immediately_. Failure to do so exposes them as the fakes and radicals that they actually are... 

Mom and Son, 2, She Was Pushing in Stroller Die When Driver Allegedly Swerves Into Them on Purpose


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 22, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



One woman escaped her attacker last week because of her second amendment rights.  In the meantime, 7 women were murdered by their intimate partners last week BECAUSE of their partners' second amendment rights.  7 died because of the second amendment rights, but one was saved.  You celebrate the one, we mourn the 7 to 1 ratio you're celebrating.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 22, 2019)

Dragonlady said:


> In the meantime, 7 women were murdered by their intimate partners last week BECAUSE of their partners' second amendment rights.


Nobody makes up "statistics" like the Canadian Kook! 

Sweetie...7 women did *not* die last week because their partners 2nd Amendment rights. Which is why I have links for my facts and you can't produce any for your bullshit. But....even if they had....tough shit. If they didn't take the *personal* *responsibility* for their own security by arming themselves, then they _deserve_ to die.


----------



## pismoe (Jun 22, 2019)

and generally speaking if its killing or murdering or raping or torturing women .    Well few average men need a gun to do any of those thing to the average woman Dragonlady .   [you weakling YOU]


----------



## ph3iron (Jun 23, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know one person right or left who is for giving up our guns.
> ...


I'm talking about the college people I know, not your zero college rubes who never were in a real war in their lives.
Makes you feel more like a man mr patriot?
You proudly show our slave owners.
Ben
""German immigrants are swarthy, can't speak our language and are taking our jobs"
Sound familiar?


----------



## ph3iron (Jun 23, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know one person right or left who is for giving up our guns.
> ...


I did.
It's false as usual.
NRA leader mangles Feinstein quote about taking guns
You really have to stop watching knees news?
Foul mouth.
Idiot?
Genius?
Couldn't resist?
Dead giveaway for zero education
I guess you believe "you can keep your plan?"
And Hillary
carted our uranium to Moscow?
Unbelievable ignorance


----------



## ph3iron (Jun 23, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful what you wish for. Never know what those dreaded Muslims may do.
> ...


Really?
Any idea why our Muslims are better educated and earn more than info wars natives like you?
Enjoying the commie benefits they contribute to that you are sucking off?
Any idea why our white supremists do way more crimes than Muslims or illegals?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 23, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> I did. It's false as usual.
> NRA leader mangles Feinstein quote about taking guns


It’s not “false”. It’s on video and indisputable. 

It’s unreal that the left actually attempts to deny _video_.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2019)

Dragonlady said:


> In the meantime, 7 women were murdered by their intimate partners last week BECAUSE of their partners' second amendment rights.


This is a lie - the 2nd does not protect the right to commit murder.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 24, 2019)

People who vote for this are FOR taking all the guns. PERIOD!!!!

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 24, 2019)




----------



## ph3iron (Jun 24, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > I did. It's false as usual.
> ...


Can you post me the video?
Ones I see she is  talking assault weapons, not all weapons?
"Cox is off target, because he said Feinstein said she wanted to take away all guns. In reality, back in 1995, Feinstein said she wanted to take away all assault rifles"
Or Are you just regurgitating knees news?.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 24, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Can you post me the video?


See above.



.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 5, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > In the meantime, 7 women were murdered by their intimate partners last week BECAUSE of their partners' second amendment rights.
> ...


Sadly, all the Canadian Quack knows are *lies*.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 5, 2019)

Every single day in this great nation, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day. Thank God for our constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms.

Armed good Samaritan comes to cop's rescue after inmate takes officer's gun, shoots her during transport from jail, witness says


----------



## P@triot (Jul 17, 2019)

Every single day in this great nation, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day. Thank God for our constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms.

Home invasion suspect enters man's home, attacks man's family. The suspect pays the ultimate price after finding the homeowner is armed.


----------



## regent (Jul 17, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every single day in this great nation, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day. Thank God for our constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Home invasion suspect enters man's home, attacks man's family. The suspect pays the ultimate price after finding the homeowner is armed.


It wasn't God that gave us the Bill of Rights it was the liberals of their time. Conservatives were against the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 17, 2019)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in this great nation, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day. Thank God for our constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms.
> ...




That is a good point in that the bankers and conservatives like Hamilton wanted a stronger federal government, and it was the liberals who wanted a weaker federal government and stronger states.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 18, 2019)

regent said:


> It wasn't God that gave us the Bill of Rights it was the liberals of their time. Conservatives were against the Bill of Rights.


And now liberals, ignore it whenever they find it inconvenient.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 1, 2019)

regent said:


> It wasn't God that gave us the Bill of Rights it was the liberals of their time.


Really? Who gave us those incredible *conservative* men that gave us the Bill of Rights? Who put the ideas for a Bill of Rights in their mind?


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't God that gave us the Bill of Rights it was the liberals of their time.
> ...



The Bill of Rights is not based on moral or ethics, but on the rational conclusion that a large and distant government is likely to become corrupt.  The Bill of Rights is based on logic, reason, and self interests.
But I agree that is also based on conservative principles.


----------



## regent (Aug 2, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


The Bill of Rights was enacted by liberals and voted on by liberals,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 2, 2019)

regent said:


> The Bill of Rights was enacted by liberals and voted on by liberals,


But not the brand of liberals we have today.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 2, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Sure wished you would stop with this lame Bill or Rights.  It stole the first 7 articles from the Constitution of the United States.  The Bill of Rights was written in 1791 while the Constitution was written in 1789.  The Bill of Rights was never ratified while the Constitution was.  In fact, it was ratified as late as 1959 when Hawaii became a state.  The Bill of rights is worth exactly the cost of the parchment and ink it was printed on.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

regent said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



What you are forgetting is that during the time of the founders, liberals were conservative.
At that time, a liberal was a person who believed in maximising personal liberties for all people.
A conservative was one who wanted to keep government small, restricted, and under control.
There is no contradiction or conflict between those 2 agendas.

It is only after the turn of the century, when business became powerful and threatening, that the word "liberal" started to take on the idea of adding new legislation that help control those abusive corporate powers, and the word "liberal" then meant to interpret the constitution more like passing any law that is not strictly prohibited, instead of the conservative view that you can only make federal laws that are explicitly authorized.  
I still personally think that it is still wrong to consider liberal and conservative as at all opposites.
They just aren't.  Liberals should still also be concerned about over reaching and corrupt federal governments.
I have no problem with a welfare state, but that should be not federal.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Bill of Rights was enacted by liberals and voted on by liberals,
> ...




Agreed.
I am an extreme leftest, socialist, liberal, progressive, etc., but in the last 25 years, the democrats stopped being any of those.   I used to like Bernie Sanders, but now I hear even he is supporting fascist gun control?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 2, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Rare is the (D) that does not seek to implement California's draconian gun law son the US as a whole.


----------



## dudmuck (Aug 2, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




I think you misunderstand.
When the Constitution was written is not relevant, and only when it was ratified is relevant.
And no states were willing to ratify the Constitution as it was.
The Bill of Rights were corrections insisted upon by liberals, progressives, and leftists, before they would join the Union and ratify the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were written by the wealthy, business oriented federalist, but only because the average people in the states were worried that the federalist would make the country into a fascist state for the wealthy.
The Bill of Rights are concessions to prevent federal corruption and control by the wealthy.

The Constitution was never ratified without the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
All the amendments are integral parts of the Constitution.

{...
The *United States Bill of Rights* comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[2] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.


----------



## miketx (Aug 2, 2019)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.


You liberal scum are trying to remove it.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

dudmuck said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I don't mind full auto, but bump stocks are pretty lame.
You really can't aim with a bump stock.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2019)

regent said:


> The Bill of Rights was enacted by liberals and voted on by liberals,


Sweetie...I’ve eaten you alive on this issue already. Those men were the ultimate small-government conservatives. They hate everything you Dumbocrats stand for. You can’t twist this one with your propaganda, no matter how hard you try.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

miketx said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.
> ...



That's where it gets confusing.
One can not possibly liberal and be in favor of disarming average people, while police, military, paramilitary, and criminals all retain their weapons, for a complete monopoly in the hands of the bad guys.

A liberal just can not be in favor of any gun control.
The people who favor gun control are either ignorant, confused, liars, nor not really liberal.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
> The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.


If you want to keep simple....*stop* attempting to give history lessons. You are literally 100% *wrong*.

James Madison was Thomas Jefferson’s protégé and they completely saw eye-to-eye on the constitution (which is to say that they were completely against it as it expanded the authority of the federal government).

It as the dirt-bag Alexander Hamilton who wanted the federal government expanded and who fought against the Bill of Rights (though I will say he had good reasons and his concerns about it sadly came to fruition).


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Bill of Rights was enacted by liberals and voted on by liberals,
> ...




But the reality is that Jefferson considered himself to be an ultra liberal, and being for keeping government small is to prevent it from becoming abusive.
Abusive government is fascist, which is extremely right wing.
Leftists are liberal and anti big government.
In fact, socialists prefer local and state communal enterprise and not federal, where corruption is too easy.

{... 
The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. 'Malo libertatem periculosam quam quietem servitutem.' Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights.

Thomas Jefferson
...}

{...
*Classical liberalism* is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanisation and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3]Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of _The Wealth of Nations_ and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism[6] and progress.[7] The term classical liberalism has often been applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[8]
...}
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
> ...



You are right that Hamilton was the big federalist, whom Jefferson opposed.

But Madison switched sides, and was a federalist originally.

{...
*Historic*

_federalist_: statesmen and public figures supporting the proposed Constitution of the United States between 1787 and 1789. The most prominent advocates were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They published _The Federalist Papers_, which delineated the tenets of the early federalist movement to promote and adopt the proposed Constitution.
_Federalist_: statesmen and public figures supporting the administrations of presidents George Washington (1789–1797) and John Adams (1797–1801). Especially in the later years they were also called the Federalist Party, founded by Alexander Hamilton. During the 1790s and early 1800s, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party and opposed the Federalists over issues of how broadly or narrowly to apply the provisions of the new Constitution.
...}
Federalist - Wikipedia


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 2, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



It all depends on your point of view on whom was the good guy and who was the bad guy.  I still think the 1791 bill or rights was just another way to keep one side busy while the other side got things done.  This is why the Bill of rights was never Ratified but the Constitution was.  Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document.  Something we have forgotten in today's world.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 2, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



You still have this wrong.
Not a single state was willing to ratify the Constitution as it was written.
It was only ratified AFTER the Bill of Rights was included into it as as amendments.
So it is wrong to say the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.
No one was willing to do that.
Essentially is was the Bill of Rights that finally caused states to ratify.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 3, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document.  Something we have forgotten in today's world.


Back in those days, the founders understood that *laws* could *not* be adhered to if they were “living” and that the U.S. Constitution was written in stone until such time as it is legally and properly amended. Something Dumbocrats are too dumb to understand today.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 3, 2019)

I don't mind the conservative approach to the Constitution, or the living document approach, as long as every one realizes it is not Congress that gets to define what law is.  The basis for law is the Constitution, and it is the state legislatures that have to approve any amendment to the Constitution.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 3, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



In 1788 and 89, 11 states ratified the Constitution as written.  The common comment was "Ratify now, amend later".  Actually, the last state ratified it in 1790 after some gentlemens agreements on amending some of it that came to pass in 1790.  This was one full year before the Bill of Rights was accepted.  The Bill of rights mirrored word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States.  While the Constitution has function, the only function of the Bill of rights was a feel good for a select few.  You keep trying to give the American Bill of Rights the same weight as the English Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta which are free standing documents.  The American Bill of Rights is just echoing what was already amended and ratified in the US Constitution as of 1790.  But if it makes you feel good, it made a handful of others feel good in 1791 as well.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 3, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> I don't mind the conservative approach to the Constitution, or the living document approach, as long as every one realizes it is not Congress that gets to define what law is.  The basis for law is the Constitution, and it is the state legislatures that have to approve any amendment to the Constitution.



I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current.  As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 3, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current.  As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.


Good! That means the republic is _working_. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.


----------



## hunarcy (Aug 3, 2019)

PK1 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



_"*A well regulated militia* being necessary to the security of a free state, _t*he right of the people* _to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 3, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



That is not what I read.
I read that while some states did ratify the Constitution as early as February of 1888, the Bill of Rights had been appended as Amendments in September of 1889.
And many states, if not most, would never have agreed to join the federal government under the Constitution, without the Bill of Rights.

{...
By 1786, defects in the post-Revolutionary War Articles of Confederation were apparent, such as the lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce. Congress endorsed a plan to draft a new constitution, and on May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention convened at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. On September 17, 1787, after three months of debate moderated by convention president George Washington, the new U.S. constitution, which created a strong federal government with an intricate system of checks and balances, was signed by 38 of the 41 delegates present at the conclusion of the convention. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states.

Beginning on December 7, five states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut—ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July. 

North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government threatened to sever commercial relations with the state. On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world.
...}
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified

Contrary to your belief the Bill of Rights is superfluous, my belief is the opposite, that it should have gone further, and also abolished slavery for more protection of individual rights.
While I can see how more federal power was helpful in the case of abusive southern states, that does not make up for the fact the federal government is by far much more abusive.
For example, the federal War on Drugs imprisoning millions, and the invasion of Iraq murdering half a million innocents.
In general, states are better at reflecting the values and rights of individuals.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 3, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind the conservative approach to the Constitution, or the living document approach, as long as every one realizes it is not Congress that gets to define what law is.  The basis for law is the Constitution, and it is the state legislatures that have to approve any amendment to the Constitution.
> ...



Yes, but that may be a good thing, in that we don't want quick or easy changes to the Constitution.
But we could use some better adherence to it, such as all federal drug, gun, or immigration laws to be struck down as being without constitutional authorization.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current.  As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.
> ...




Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 3, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



To clarify more, the phrase "well regulated" meant "practiced", for a citizen soldier is useless if he had no previous experience with weapons of war.
You can understand that meaning better when you look at things like the commerce clause, which gives the feds authority to regulate interstate commerce.  That clearly does NOT mean to restrict interstate commerce, but to facilitate it and prevent restriction by any one state against another.  Regulate means to keep regular and moving, such as regular digestion or a well regulated clock.
To keep arms means to own, but that is useless if one can not carry them to practice fields, which is bearing arms.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 3, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



They got it wrong.  It's a misspelling from 1789.  It was supposed to read so that Bear Hunting was more interesting.

t*he right of the people* _to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed._


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 3, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons.  All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant.  It was a different time.  If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war.  And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war.  The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned.  But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day.  The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change.  There was an unrest in America.  War was coming.  Firearms inventors went into high gear.  By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing.  And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns.  By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner.  By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially  worthless.  And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed.  The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 3, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You are essentially correct.  But the bill or rights, being just a carbon copy of the first 10 amendments  amended and ratified Constitution of 1790 was done to make the "Other" side feel good.  It actually did nothing otherwise.  What's funny, the wording of the 2nd amendment of "Arms" comes right out of the Magna Carta when only Kings could afford weapons of war.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 3, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> What's funny, the wording of the 2nd amendment of "*Arms*" comes right out of the Magna Carta when only Kings could afford *weapons of war*.


So you admit that “arms” includes *all* weapons. About time.


----------



## Terri4Trump (Aug 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded




That's a winner for sure.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect.  It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons.  And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave.  Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with.  It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.  
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 4, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong.  You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick.  A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.  

You brought up the AR. I generalized.  But let's use the AR.  The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice?  The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once.  That usually means the AR.  That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings.  It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly.  The AR was invented for war and a high body count.  It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas.  Just because it can be used to open  a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener.  The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society.  And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not.  When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides?  If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.  

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves.  While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down.  If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses.  Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 5, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.

As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders.  That is not what changed.  They just did not do mass murders then as much as now.  Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal.  They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester.  And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII.  In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.





In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible.  A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth.  Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything.  Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.  
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns.  They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold.  So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police?  Because there is nothing in it for anyone.  No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns.  And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money.  There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works.  No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with.  Gun control only harms honest people.


----------



## Jackson (Aug 5, 2019)

Along with the *right* to bear arms should be the *responsibility* to prove you are sane to have that weapon.  Time to test participants who want guns.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 5, 2019)

Jackson said:


> Along with the *right* to bear arms should be the *responsibility* to prove you are sane to have that weapon.  Time to test participants who want guns.



That sounds reasonable, but if the government is becoming despotic, as all governments do eventually, how to you deal with a corrupt government that simply considers anyone who wants freedom, to be insane?
The question really is whether in a democratic republic, you trust the people or you prefer to put all your trust in government?
And if you want to trust government, then why bother with a democratic republic?
You might as well just go with a dictatorship and skip the expensive campaigns and voting.

And if someone is so insane and dangerous that you do not want them to have weapons, you really need to do a whole not more than gun control.  You have to keep them away from flammables, poisons, large vehicles, explosives, etc.  So gun control is pretty much just a complete waste of time.

Tell me how it is going to do any good if you deny a firearm purchase from a gun store dealer, since all the person has to do it then go to a drug dealer instead, and put in an order for any firearm they want?
If they can smuggle hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs, then a few additional firearms are nothing.  And all drug dealer have firearms connections because they have to deal with turf wars, the fact they can't use banks, they can't call the police to defend them, etc.  In fact, it should be pretty obvious that if we want to reduce shootings, we need to end the war on drugs.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Okay, let's look at the flaws in the M-1 which the modern semi auto was founded on.  Case in point, the Mini-14.  Okay, you just emptied your mag out and it locked to the rear.  You need both hands to get the spent mag out. One to hit the release and the other to rotate the mag in a forward arc until it releases.  Yes, I know a person that can do it one handed but He's a Beast and not normal in any way.  Now, you drop your spent mag, get another mag out of your carrier, pack, belt or whatever, put it into the opening and then rock it backward until it clicks.  Now you have to use a hand to release the bolt release which slams the bolt forward.  It was a work of art in 1917.  But most of the gun was still conventional and used for hunting by millions of people all across the globe.  There were no other real improvements in the M-1 outside of semi auto function.  And in 1917, the age of the Automatics had already come and the M-1 Semi Auto setting was less accurate than the Bolt Action versions by the same manufacturer.  And it was damned expensive until it became war surplus.  But even as war surplus, it wasn't as big a leap as the regular hunting rifles already available at less cost to the civilian community.  No big thing.  It borrowed heavily from the design and function of civilian rifles.

Now, let's look at the AR.  Not one ounce of that rifle borrowed from a civilian rifle in design or function.  Not one ounce of cosmetics as used.  It's all function with only one thing in mind.  How can an 18 year old kid with minimum training, scared out of his mind, pumped up with adrenaline, faced with a large enemy force, do as much combat damage as possible in a short a time as possible.  The AR meets that requirement 100%.  If you have never been in a firefight, you won't understand.  There is nothing pretty about an AR.  Everything about it is for a reason.  And not one ounce of it is so you can go out and shoot a varmint with it unless that varmint is wearing Black Pajamas.  And it's just as deadly in it's semi auto mode as it used to be in it's full auto mode.  

The AR is just right.  The reason it's a 556 and not a 7.62 is that the 308 size would be too large and heavy, require a longer barrel, bigger mags, be twice the weight and new recruits would find it a real handful to handle.  I will admit, the 556 is a bit weak and the 6.8 is going to be a better round but the problem is, the 556 does the job.  And just doing the job in war means a whole hell of a lot more than doing a bang up job MOST of the time when you can get it.  

You see, I look at it from a Military point of view.  To me it's a tool of war.  A Model 700 BDL can be used (and has been) as a tool of war.  And in an invasion of this country, there are going to end up being more kills by guns like the Model 700 than the AR.  You let a battle hardened well equipped Enemy get close enough for you to shoot at him with your AR, you are dead.  Now, sit off a quarter of a mile or more you have a much better survival rate.  He will be much better with his version of an AR than you will be with yours.  

Now, there is the other weapons that the 1934 National Firearms Act covers and other acts  cover.  Grenades, explosive rockets, mines, and more.  If those were available openly to the public, can you imagine trying to just run down to the corner 7-11 for a smoothie?  Welcome to Afghanistan.  We have enough fruitcakes that use the most potent weapon of war at their disposal today.  We don't need to be adding to their arsenals.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 5, 2019)

Jackson said:


> Along with the *right* to bear arms should be the *responsibility* to prove you are sane to have that weapon.  Time to test participants who want guns.



In certain classes of Firearms, you pretty much have to prove that.  Actually, ANYONE not found unsafe or insane can get a Class of a Firearms License if they can afford one where they can own just about anything.  But there is a background check done by the FBI involved that is a bit more involved than the firearms background check to purchase a gun at a gun shop.  You can lie and get your gun at the gun shop and pass the background check.  But you had better tell the truth on the Firearms Background Check for the FBI because it WILL be checked and there WILL be a prison sentence if you do lie on it.  Otherwise, it's not really any worse and almost all of us will come through with flying colors though one.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Along with the *right* to bear arms should be the *responsibility* to prove you are sane to have that weapon.  Time to test participants who want guns.
> ...



You do know you just made the case for National Universal Background Checks and holding the last registered selling criminally responsible for any action that the weapon is used, don't you.  

Chicago PD knows of 10 Indiana Gun Shops where over 60% of the illegal weapons used in crimes in Chicago come from.  The guns were legally purchased, including a background check.  Then they changed hands in a backyard sale (still legal).  Then they were transported across the border (just went illegal) into Chicago (takes about a 4 minute drive outside of rush hour).  To give you an idea, In Indiana, you have to be 21 to buy liquor but you can guy long guns (like the AR) at age 18 legally along with any and all accessories and ammo you can even dream of.  And if you do it at the gun shows (or the back end of a Buick in a Denny's parking lot) then no background check is necessary (or even an ID).  

It doesn't do as good as it should for gun regulations if the state minutes away is totally open and providing your criminals with the illicit weapons to commit the crimes with.


----------



## Brain357 (Aug 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


The numbers of lethal weapons have changed drastically.  Sure they have been around for a long time, but they weren't commonly owned.  When I was a kid even the police still had 6 shot revolvers.  Most hunters had bolt or lever action rifles.  Now everyone has a pistol with 15 round capacity and ARs and AKs are all over.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 5, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> The numbers of lethal weapons have changed drastically. Sure they have been around for a long time, but they weren't commonly owned. When I was a kid even the police still had 6 shot revolvers. Most hunters had bolt or lever action rifles. Now everyone has a pistol with 15 round capacity and ARs and AKs are all over. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing.


By "lethal" you mean they are capable of killing?

Please list for me every firearm that is not lethal.  

.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 5, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Sorry, I disagree.
I prefer and think the M-1 carbine is vastly superior to the AR.
I think the AR is one of the worst rifles ever built.
It is incredibly inferior in every way.

First of all, instead of a piston, the AR uses "direct impingement", which means a tiny stainless steel tube ported off the front of the barrel, and going all the way back to the bolt carrier.  This always gets clogged up, can not be cleaned, and is not adjustable for temperature or ammunition load.  Its awful.  The only other rifles I know that use direct impingement, the Ljungman, Hakim, and Maas, also do not work well due to these same problems, jamming and fouling.

Then there is the 8 lug bolt.  That is just stupid.  If there is dirt in any locking lug, it won't work, so you want to minimize lugs.  Many rifles and pistols, like the FN FAL, only have 1 large locking ramp.  The 8 lug, rotating bolt of the AR is just  works very badly.

Then there is the separate cocking lever on the AR.  While it mean there is no live lever moving back and forth with the bolt, it does not work because you need a live lever once the rifle gets dirty or hot and the bolt is not seating perfectly.  So on the AR, they had to add a side cocking assist push button, and machine in a whole bunch of awful notches in the bolt.  Ridiculous.  All other rifles just use a live cocking bolt handle instead.

ARs are also famous for lots of plastic, like the foregrip, which always easily break.

Then there is the light weight and aluminum, which is bad in my opinion, because is does not absorb recoil as much, wears out very fast, and does not allow a steady shot.

Then there is the straight back design of the stock.  While that means the gun does not climb as much with each shot, it means more felt recoil, so causes the need for the delicate stock damper, and means you don't get to sight down the barrel, but instead have the elevated sight that catches on everything.

Etc.

I could go on, but my point is that the AR is not superior or more deadly, but was just a marketing ploy
The popularity was because it became inexpensive due to the surplus market.  
So in reality, the Assault weapons ban is just trying to make inexpensive firearms illegal.  
It is as undemocratic as you can get, trying to only allow the wealthy to have arms.

Then there are grenades, explosive rockets, mines, and more.  And the reality is those ARE available openly to the public, and always will be.  Yet there is no problem, and never will be.  I can go buy dynamite whenever I want.  I have done that several times already, to remove stumps.  I can make explosives out of fertilizer and powdered aluminum.  I can buy tannerite as much as I want.  But there has never been any problem.  In fact, after WWI, they were selling surplus Thompson Machineguns for $27 mail order, and it was only Prohibition that caused a problem.  Most people were not interested.  So there is no problem and these laws improved nothing.  All they did was to insult the whole idea of a democratic republic.  

Sure there are fruitcakes that should not have any weapons at all, much less good weapons.  But they then also should not have a vehicle, flammable, poisons, or many other things as well.  And the only way to make them safe is by reversing what Reagan  did in 1986, and put these dangerous people back into institutions.  You don't try to make the world nerf safe, instead you make the real world safe by supervising the whacko individuals.  Any and all gun control is inherently illegal, unproductive, and totally corrupt, in a democratic republic.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 5, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



First of all, any and all federal weapons law are and will always be illegal due to the Bill of Rights reserving that jurisdiction to the states.
The fact the SCOTUS allows federal weapons laws, is just total anarchy and corruption, which destroys the Rule of Law.

Second is that arms are lost, stolen, and owner die of old age, so there is no way to prevent criminals from getting them illegally, and it is illegal to hold the registered buyers liable.
But that is NOT how most people get their illegal guns.  
They get them through illegal drug dealers, because the War on Drugs have caused millions of people in the US to have become wealthy through drug smuggling.
They have to have guns because they are not allowed to use banks or call the police for defense.
Almost all the guns and murders in the US are entirely due to the illegal federal War on Drugs.  
And if we stopped that, almost all the guns and murders would quickly stop, just as they did when we ended Prohibition of Alcohol.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 5, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Wrong.
The entire source and cause for the increase in firepower is the War on Drugs.
Look at the stats, and you instantly see big spikes in murder from Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
The war on drugs is illegal and stupid, since it entices poor people with promises of big profits, and requires them to be armed since they can't use banks, police, or other means of defending their turf.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


I wrote a paper seminar on that very comparison.   The similarities are SHOCKING.

And the big scary gun labeled as the boogyman was the Thomson Sub Machine Gun.  

.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Over 60% of the weapons used in crimes in Chicago were legally purchased in Indiana just a 4 minute drive from the suburbs of Chicago according to the Chicago Police Chief.  They weren't stolen, they didn't get shipped in by drug smugglers, they weren't inherited.  They were purchased legally in Indiana and then illegally shipped over the state border.  I suggest before you keep running your mouth, do a bit of research first.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2019)

Jackson said:


> Along with the *right* to bear arms should be the *responsibility* to prove you are sane to have that weapon.  Time to test participants who want guns.


Apply this argument to the right to have an abortion.
See what the pro-abortion crowd says.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Sorry, I disagree.
> I prefer and think the M-1 carbine is vastly superior to the AR.
> I think the AR is one of the worst rifles ever built.
> It is incredibly inferior in every way.


This is absolute nonsense.


----------



## Jackson (Aug 7, 2019)

My opinion on guns is changing.  I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned.  There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.

I understand the original reason for the gun but that was long ago.  If our freedom is ever in danger from other countries, we can always have the legislature to allow those weapons back to the people.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 7, 2019)

Jackson said:


> My opinion on guns is changing.  I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned.  There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.
> 
> I understand the original reason for the gun but that was long ago.  If our freedom is ever in danger from other countries, we can always have the legislature to allow those weapons back to the people.



Back when the 2nd amendment was written, most weapons were kept in Armories.  The muskets were private but the Rifles were in Armories.  It was hard enough for Gen. Washington to get Congress to allocate for the Rifles over the Muskets as it were unless they were stored in Federal controlled Armories.  States also had state armories with rifles.  When planting and harvest came about, the Militias would turn in their rifles, grab their muskets and head home to take care of business.  The Rifle in 1777 was the equiv to the full auto weapons of today.  The British were outgunned with having only a handful of Rifles and none in the Colonies.  

There were times when the civilians would revolt over extremely bad government (bad police, etc.) and have to break into the local armory for weapons.  While not common, it wasn't unheard of.  Until after WWI, most of the population didn't even own a gun other than a shotgun.  There were instances when the population had to break into the armories and arm themselves with military rifles (mostly bolt action).  I really don't know when that went out of vogue but it went all the way into the first part of the 20th century.  In the end, it usually was settle peacefully and the weapons were returned.  The problem with the 2nd amendment is a late 20th and 21st century invention.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2019)

Jackson said:


> My opinion on guns is changing.  I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned.  There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.


How many rounds does this gun hold?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 7, 2019)

My opinion on guns has changed.

We need machine guns.

.


----------



## Jackson (Aug 7, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion on guns is changing.  I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned.  There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.
> ...


What is it?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 24, 2019)

Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.

Georgia homeowner fatally shoots 3 masked teens allegedly trying to rob him


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 24, 2019)

Jackson said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...





Jackson said:


> What is it?




The defense rests, your honor.


----------



## miketx (Sep 25, 2019)

Jackson said:


> My opinion on guns is changing.  I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned.  There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.
> 
> I understand the original reason for the gun but that was long ago.  If our freedom is ever in danger from other countries, we can always have the legislature to allow those weapons back to the people.


Most idiotic lemming post of the month. Our freedom is in danger right now from filth like YOU!


----------



## ph3iron (Sep 25, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Georgia homeowner fatally shoots 3 masked teens allegedly trying to rob him


Phew, we are down to 40000 gun deaths?
I feel safer. Now.
But. Not you repelling your doublewide invaders?
Be afraid, be very afraid


P@triot said:


> Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Georgia homeowner fatally shoots 3 masked teens allegedly trying to rob him


Darn these uppity.nixxer teens.
Lynch them all don't youthink?


----------



## ph3iron (Sep 25, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Georgia homeowner fatally shoots 3 masked teens allegedly trying to rob him


A. Hoot my patriot lynching friend spends all day looking for single examples tokeepour gun mania going.
Terrific life


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> ...








Why are you so called woke people so racist?  The color of the perps didn't matter one bit.  I assure you that had the perps been white, they would have ended up just as dead.


----------



## miketx (Sep 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> ...


40,000 guns have died? Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Markle (Sep 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Phew, we are down to 40000 gun deaths?
> I feel safer. Now.
> But. Not you repelling your doublewide invaders?
> Be afraid, be very afraid








13 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence in 2018


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Jackson said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



It is an AR lower receiver, and first if you do not recognize that, you don't know enough about guns to comment on gun laws.  Second is that the magazine clearly is not part of the gun.
It is an auxiliary part that can be exchanged or modified in any one wants.
So laws about magazine size are foolish to link in any with there the weapons that the magazines may be put into.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> 13 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence in 2018


And?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> ...



The gun murders actually are only about 8,000 a year, and they estimate that 90% of those are due to the war on drugs.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Phew, we are down to 40000 gun deaths?
> ...



Nonsense.
That is deliberately deceptive by using a very narrow window.
Here is the reality.






Gun deaths are way down from normal.
And the peaks were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, so then clearly it is federal legislation that causes murder to spike.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > 13 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence in 2018
> ...



And Markle is lying because gun deaths are near an all time low.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 25, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Creating black markets causes violence.  Once again, America fails to learn the lesson that prohibiting the sale of certain items leads to lots of violence and criminal wealth while doing little to stop the activity.

And now they want to prohibit the sale of firearms. 

.


----------



## Markle (Sep 25, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



The point by


Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> That is deliberately deceptive by using a very narrow window.
> Here is the reality.
> 
> ...



The information I provided is a FACT.  Is it labeled MURDERS?  NO!


----------



## Markle (Sep 25, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



SHOVE IT!  Prove that the FACTS I posted are NOT TRUE or admit YOU LIED. 

As shown in my chart, provided with a working link, DEATHS are near 40,000 with the vast majority being an increase in suicide.

I am as strong a Second Amendment advocate as you'll ever meet but if you're going to call ME a LIAR for posting FACTS, you can go straight to heck.

STEP UP AND PROVE I LIED!!


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Wrong. 
Whether you call it murder or gun deaths.
The reality is that currently we are on a fairly steady decline from the much higher level of murder and gun violence during Prohibition and the strong War on Drugs years.
It is easy to prove you are wrong.
There are only about 8000 gun murder a year.
But the mass shootings with AR are more like just 100 a year, and completely and utterly irrelevant.
The reality is that over 10,000 of the shooting each year are suicides, which not only are not murders or shooting, but obviously something that gun control can not change.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Why are you posting that there is an increase in murder or shootings, when clearly there is a continual downward trend?
The result of anyone looking at your graphs, is that there is a serious problem that need to be fixed.
IE. is it the kind of fake graph I would expect someone supporting gun control to put up.
You should not have put up a graph with such a short range, that mixed in suicides to confuse the issue.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Here is an even better analysis I ran into.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Here is a more accurate short range graph.


----------



## Markle (Sep 25, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Whether you call it murder or gun deaths.
> The reality is that currently we are on a fairly steady decline from the much higher level of murder and gun violence during Prohibition and the strong War on Drugs years.
> It is easy to prove you are wrong.
> ...



Is this post 100% true or not?

Where does it mention the word MURDER?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...



What is wrong is that the graph time range is so short that it makes it look as if gun deaths have always been on a constant rise.
That would make people believe gun deaths have always constantly gotten worse, so then they would conclude gun control is necessary.
When you widen the range of years, you see that the over all is down, and the tiny blip up around 2015 is still very low compared to the 1990s.
Which then shows that gun control is not at all necessary.


----------



## Markle (Sep 25, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You called me a liar and the post is 100% accurate.  

Is this post 100% true or not?

Where does it mention the word MURDER?

Quit wiggling, admit you lied and did not even read the chart before your childish rant.  Grow up!  You sound like a far-left Progressive!


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 25, 2019)

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



The graph is clearly wrong and deceptive.
Gun deaths are not on the increase in general, a year or so variation means nothing.
You should  not have posted it.
It is wrong to post a short and small increase without showing  that it is following a large and long decrease.

And yes, I am a very far-left Progressive.


----------



## ph3iron (Sep 26, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



Normal here is through the roof in Europe.
So how is ours relative to the uk again?
It's still 10x that of other educated countries.
What do we expect?
USA is a violent place, founded by convicts, slave owners and religious nuts


----------



## ph3iron (Sep 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Is this sweaty trey, 11 hours grilling Hillary and came away with ZERO?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Yes, no public health care, a history of thing like Prohibition and the war on drugs, etc., it is not at all surprising we have a higher murder rate than countries that imprison fewer people and take care of them better.


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Normal here is through the roof in Europe.
> *So how is ours relative to the uk again?
> It's still 10x that of other educated countries.*
> What do we expect?
> USA is a violent place, founded by convicts, slave owners and religious nuts



"USA is a violent place, founded by convicts, slave owners and religious nuts"

Sounds like you need to be in a country where you are happy instead of so senselessly angry and filled with so much hate.  Where do you live?

*The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.* 
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.






The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Is this sweaty trey, 11 hours grilling Hillary and came away with ZERO?


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You just keep on lying and have run like a scared little girl from the fact that you called me a liar for posting a factual chart.

Then you come here pushing more lies.  You must be so proud!


----------



## ph3iron (Sep 27, 2019)

Markle said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Is this sweaty trey, 11 hours grilling Hillary and came away with ZERO?


These darn uppity nixes marrying our white gals.
I'm for going back to lynching.
You too?


----------



## Markle (Sep 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Sep 27, 2019)




----------



## P@triot (Oct 2, 2019)

Jackson said:


> I understand the original reason for the gun but that was long ago.  If our freedom is ever in danger from other countries, *we can always have the legislature to allow those weapons back to the people*.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> USA is a violent place...


Yes it is. Which begs the question...why are you so desperate to disarm citizens? The only people who want to disarm citizens are the criminals who want to prey on them.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 2, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes, no public health care...


Why the _fuck_ should their be “public healthcare”?!? I’m so sick of you fucking parasites demanding that I pay for your lifestyle.

If you want something - you pay for it. That’s how life works, you lazy freeloader.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> ...


Nah. That’s crazy talk. Instead, we should let them violate any and all laws. Without exception. I mean, who the fuck are you to say that they cannot invade your home, ph3iron? Hell, who are you to say it’s even “your” home. It belongs to the public. It belongs to _society_. You didn’t build that.

And those “uppity nixxer teens” (what the fuck is a “nixxer” anyway?) - they have a right to rob you.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> ...


Bwahahaha! Someone is sooo butthurt that I’ve provided volumes of data proving she is *dead* *wrong*. 

(Psst...I literally never search. Ever. These are headline stories)


----------



## P@triot (Oct 2, 2019)

Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.

And that _infuriates_ people like ph3iron - who want to prey on defenseless, wheelchair-bound citizens.

Man enters house, tells wheelchair-bound homeowner, 'Give me that gun before you hurt yourself, old man.' Intruder definitely got it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> And that _infuriates_ people like ph3iron - who want to prey on defenseless, wheelchair-bound citizens.
> 
> Man enters house, tells wheelchair-bound homeowner, 'Give me that gun before you hurt yourself, old man.' Intruder definitely got it.


The firearm is the ultimate equalizer.

Where a 250 pound musclebound man can beat the fucking shit out of a 100 pound woman and have his way with her, a firearm makes the two equal.

Why do the Commies want to make women vulnerable?  Why did the Commies want to make disabled vulnerable?

.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> And that _infuriates_ people like ph3iron - who want to prey on defenseless, wheelchair-bound citizens.
> 
> Man enters house, tells wheelchair-bound homeowner, 'Give me that gun before you hurt yourself, old man.' Intruder definitely got it.



I actually just have a laugh at commie benefits old white farts.
Still waiting for the number of terrorists our patriot (last refuge of the scoundrel) has blasted out of his double wide.
Boy this is fun


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 2, 2019)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why do the Commies want to make women vulnerable?  Why did the Commies want to make disabled vulnerable?


To make them dependent on the state.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> And that _infuriates_ people like ph3iron - who want to prey on defenseless, wheelchair-bound citizens.
> 
> Man enters house, tells wheelchair-bound homeowner, 'Give me that gun before you hurt yourself, old man.' Intruder definitely got it.


The Blaze, Gateway Pundit. Hilarious
Required reading for zero college benefit sucking old white farts.
How come you never post 
A toddler found a handgun and fatally shot himself. His case is one of at least 73 accidental child deaths involving a gun in 2018
Ben Darlin


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 2, 2019)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> ...


Keep the commies out of my SS say our old white fart posters here


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 2, 2019)

“_This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.  In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes._”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803


View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings  - Online Library of Liberty


----------



## Markle (Oct 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> The Blaze, Gateway Pundit. Hilarious
> Required reading for zero college benefit sucking old white farts.
> How come you never post
> A toddler found a handgun and fatally shot himself. His case is one of at least 73 accidental child deaths involving a gun in 2018
> Ben Darlin



What FACTS in The Blaze or Gateway Pundit do you dispute?  FACTS!

Any death of a child is tragic.  Seventy-three iN a country of over 330 MILLION people over a full year, that's great!  So few!

For example






BAN TUBS, POOLS, and the OCEANS!


----------



## Markle (Oct 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> How come you never post
> A toddler found a handgun and fatally shot himself. His case is one of at least 73 accidental child deaths involving a gun in 2018



Or this....

Large buckets and young children can be a deadly combination. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received reports of over 275 young children who have drowned in buckets since 1984. Over 30 other children have been hospitalized. Almost all of the containers were 5-gallon buckets containing liquids. Most were used for mopping floors or other household chores. Many were less than half full.

CPSC Infant Drowning -


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 2, 2019)

Markle said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > The Blaze, Gateway Pundit. Hilarious
> ...


You're suggesting that they actually give a rat fuck about public safety.

No, no, NO.  This is about totalitarian safety.  Not your safety or anyone else's.



.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Still waiting for the number of terrorists our patriot (last refuge of the scoundrel) has blasted out of his double wide.


Sooooo....wait.....if I can't provide your dumb ass with an anecdotal experience, you feel that the thousands and thousands of instances per year don't count? Bwahahahahahaha!


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.
> ...


I love when leftists get their asses handed to them with facts and they try to convince everyone they are "enjoying" the ass-kicking they are taking.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> How come you never post
> A toddler found a handgun and fatally shot himself. His case is one of at least 73 accidental child deaths involving a gun in 2018


A "whole" 73 accidents? _Wow_. Thousands and thousands of serious crimes averted per year - but we should throw the U.S. Constitution in the garbage because there was a "whopping" 73 accidents.

Neither the 2nd Amendment nor the firearm was the problem in your link. The problem was an irresponsible adult. In the U.S., we don't take rights away from Person B because Person A was irresponsible or committed a crime. That's not how we do it. That's how Saddam Hussein did it. That's who you align yourself with. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?


----------



## 007 (Oct 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Brings out the racist in them too. They can't hide their hate for white people, or more specifically, senior white men... yet they'd gladly VOTE for one, like commie Bernie or creepy uncle Joe. They're too unhinged to even care about everyone seeing their hypocrisy nowadays.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Really?
Nice English.
Got a life yet?
Still sucking off your socialist benefits?
I'm Still waiting for your heroic repelling your house invaders with your guns.
Boy this is hilarious


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 3, 2019)

007 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



Or creepy fat vagina grabbers and teen dressing room peeker?
My hero


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > How come you never post
> ...



These were kids, who cares.
40000 adults better?
The problem wasn't a gun?
Anyhow, my pm is as useless as yours.
Here's a non I gun estimate
"The L.A. Times also reported on statistics released by the Violence Policy Center in June 2015. Those statistics showed that in 2012, there were 259 justifiable self-defense homicides in which victims turned the tables. In 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault -- despite 300 million firearms are owned in the United States -- so the report conjectured that guns have not been effective crime deterrents. 

The Violence Policy Center also said the 259 justifiable homicides should be balanced against the theft of about 232,000 guns each year -- about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put into the hands of criminals, the Times reported"
259 in 1200000?
I think we should have tanks in our garages don't you?
Never know when the Chinese are going to attack.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > How come you never post
> ...



We? Don't.?
As a millionaire corporate guy it's as I'm not even from the us?
Hey I'm for lynching, sucking off ignorant rubes and our good old white days.
And the lady cop who killed the black guy eating an ice cream in his own apt?
If she hadn't had a gun she would have strangled him with something.
You too??


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> I'm *S*till waiting for your heroic *repelling your* house invaders with your guns.


That sentence is structured like someone with an IQ of about 65.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> "The L.A. Times also reported on statistics released by the Violence Policy Center in June 2015. Those statistics showed that in 2012, there were 259 justifiable self-defense homicides in which victims turned the tables. In 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault -- despite 300 million firearms are owned in the United States -- *so the report conjectured* that guns have not been effective crime deterrents.


We don’t do “conjecture” on this side of the aisle, snowflake. We do cold, hard, *facts*.

Four years after allowing universal ‘concealed carry’ law, Maine rated the *safest* state in the nation for crime - California Political Review


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> The Violence Policy Center also said the 259 *justifiable* *homicides* should be balanced against the theft of about 232,000 guns each year -- about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put into the hands of criminals, the Times reported"


Note how the propaganda dupes mindless minions like Ph3iron? They choose “justifiable homicides” _only_. I’ve filled this thread with hundreds of instances where a law abiding citizen prevented a crime by pulling out their firearm. They didn’t even have to fire, much less kill the perpetrator.

A rational person would prefer that outcome. Because law abiding citizens resort to deadly force so little, the study used that statistic to give the appearance that it’s not worth it. And dummies like Ph3iron fall for it!


----------



## P@triot (Oct 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> We*? Don't.?*
> As a millionaire corporate guy *it's as I'm* not even from the us?





ph3iron said:


> I'm *S*till waiting for *your heroic repelling your house* invaders with your guns.
> Boy this is hilarious





ph3iron said:


> Here's a *non I gun* estimate


A little drunk, are we?_ Someone_ has a substance abuse problem...


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)




----------



## ph3iron (Oct 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > The Violence Policy Center also said the 259 *justifiable* *homicides* should be balanced against the theft of about 232,000 guns each year -- about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put into the hands of criminals, the Times reported"
> ...



I'm a mindless minion as opposed to our PhD patriot.
Merry Xmas to you too darlin
Can you post the hundreds of instances again (not from a nra site if poss)
I would have thought a rational person would prefer no one had a gun except law enforcement 
But enough humor, I leave our brave patriot to fume in his bath chair and double wide, waiting for an intruder
I'm still waiting for his record on repelling invaders 
Zero I suspect?


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Gun Owners of America | The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 4, 2019)

Rustic said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



The GAO.  The NRA on Crack.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


They are a great organization, they don’t mess around... lol
Your dislike of them indicates their value.... Anti-gun nutter like yourself despise any type of firearm ownership.... fact


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 4, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Once again, you look like an idjit.  I support common sense gun regs.  I support the ones we have in Colorado right now.  No more no less.  We were the first to have them and we were the first to prove the Due Process in the Courts at great expense against the NRA and your GOA and make the stick.  I can still go buy a gun in 15 minutes.  I can have as many as I want to have.  I am not limited in the amount of ammo I have on hand.  I don't live in fear that anyone is going to come and take my guns.  Am I a gun owner?  Well, cupcake, that's a personal question.  Will I buy any guns from you?  Never, I don't support gun crazies financially.  I like things as they are and we spent a lot of time, money and childrens lives to get it like it is.  You spent zero of all the above so you have zero say in any of it.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


lol
Just like I suspected, it’s a control thing with you isn’t it?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 4, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



If you mean that I refuse to allow you to control the laws where I live, then you are correct.  You need to take control and responsibility for where you live and stop trying to control where I live.  We like it the way it is here. 

If you think we should control the mass shootings like we do then you would be right.  You don't have the population we do and don't need the control.  But after 3 major mass shootings we took the bull by the horns and not only passed gun regulations but also did community education along with it to prevent more shootings.  Or we could do what Texas and Florida has done and done nothing and allowed the mass shootings to continue.  Yes, WE (collectively) took control and responsibility for our own fate.  And we don't listen to you trying to control us.  

In other words, it appears it's you that are trying to exert the control and are pissed that we won't allow it.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Rural America does not have shootings, nor does it have any substantial violence. The one thing it does have is more firearms than any other place in America and all types of firearms… So we don’t need your fucked up gun control laws…


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > We*? Don't.?*
> ...


I should be.
You are the paranoid one darlin.
So I feel more comfortable living in oz, U.K., you in our gun loaded country.
Each to his own.
God bless you to feel you have to be heavily armed to protect your dreaded freedom.
Try to help someone today.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Once again, you look like an idjit. I support *common sense gun regs*.


AKA total ban and confiscation, because that's what they all lead to.

If you have ever voted democrat, you support a total ban.

You have, so you support, democrat.

Maybe it's time for you to vote 3rd Party and quit voting to lose your own rights.

.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 4, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Nice foul mouth.
Prerequisite of rural USA?
Is that why Iowa, rural has more gun suicide deaths than say California?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 4, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I already showed where where you live has a much higher gun crime rate than anywhere in New York City by far.  You live near Rapid City, S.D..  It's the crime capital of South Dakota.  And it's Rural.  So don't give me that crap.  I live in what is called Rural as well and about 100 feet from here we had a shooting with a fatality yesterday.  And this is considered one of the safest parts of the town.  This was a first for around here.  But it happened.  In other areas, it's almost quite common.  This Rural Area rivals Denver in the gun violence now.  Rural America isn't like it once was.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Have you ever driven through Iowa?  I have.  Made me want to put a barrel in my mouth.......Just kidding.  Nice place if you have a fetish for corn, lots of corn.......lots of corn..... more corn.........reloading....


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
Suicides do not count, there’s nothing more cowardly than suicide… Although they do take care of themselves


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


lol
Only a fool would think that Rapid City is Rural. 
And I live about 100 miles northwest as the crow flies from Rapid City… And you can count on one hand the number of murders so far in 2019 in the Rapid City area. 

The vast majority of criminal behavior in this country and violence is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban America with extremely strict gun control laws, execute repeat offenders problem solved. Fact


----------



## P@triot (Oct 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> I would have thought a rational person would prefer no one had a gun except law enforcement


Well clearly thinking is not your strong point then. Because that’s not how “rational” people think. That’s how Nazis think.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> I'm still waiting for his record on repelling invaders. Zero I suspect?


I’m still waiting for you to share with us the life-saving cancer treatments you received.

Wait...you didn’t receive any? Well, I guess we should shut down all cancer research, destroy all cancer data, and immediately eliminate all cancer treatments.

I mean, according to your logic, if a single person hasn’t required cancer treatment (*yet*), then *nobody* on the planet needs cancer treatment!


----------



## P@triot (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> If you mean that I refuse to allow you to control the laws where I live, then you are correct.  You need to take control and responsibility for where you live and stop trying to control where I live.  We like it the way it is here.


The U.S. Constitution trumps what you “like”, snowflake. Deal with it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 4, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Rapid City has less than 100K population.  It's listed as Rural.  Just like where I live.  There are as many living outside the city limits in the county as inside the city.  The City is part of the County.  Making it rural.  You can tap dance on this all you wish but you are in a dangerous area.

Now, let's look at the population numbers.  So you had only 5 murders in Rapid City in 2019 so far.  That means you will have about 9 by the end of the year.  When you figure against a population of about 50K you get a number of 9 units against NYC with  a number of 2.4 or Denvers 5.7.  Sioux Falls has a lower Number and That is definitely a Urban Area.  You live in an area nearly as violent as Detroit with a number of not much higher.  I live in an area with slightly higher population than where you are.  We will have about 3 this year total.  That means, although it's low, NYC is still lower.  But it used to be higher.  And we are working on making it Zero although we may never reach that but it won't stop us from trying without affecting everyones basic rights and privileges.  

I suggest you take care of your own problems instead of trying to tell the rest of us how we should lead out lives.  It appears your life ain't the heaven you claim it to be.  Your control is noted.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
There won’t be nine murders in Rapid City area in 2019, crime goes way down in the winter time in western South Dakota.
And Rapid City is not rural whatsoever.. that area is crawling with people....

There is a reason why I live up here… Carefree


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



I guess I can sort of understand where you are coming from because you live in a fairly nice country, with a reasonably honest government.
In the US, we do not.
We have a government that is constantly illegally invading innocent countries, for colonialism and imperialism, murdering millions.
We have the largest percentage incarcerated in the world.
About 30% of minorities are not allowed to vote due to convictions from the War on Drugs.
We have some of the most unfair tax laws in the world, so it is cheaper for landlords to buy up housing for rentals, than it is for people to be able to buy their own home.
We have mandatory private, for profit, health insurance.
Etc.
The ONLY thing that prevents out right fascism in the US, is the threat of rebellion from an armed population.
And the corrupt in government are beginning to ignore even that.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




29. Iowa — 14.5
45. California — 10.5
( rate per 100,000 individuals

That is not much difference.
However, suicide likely is due to the cold Iowa winters, combined with the lack of job opportunities in the rust belt, with everything be offshored to China.
Rural isolation may also be a factor.
Access to weapons is not likely a factor at all.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 4, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You screwed the pooch on this one.  You didn't bank on someone in here knowing the area you live in so well.  Hell I not only lived there for 4 years, I played music in a band all over the entire area.  Drove over most of the roads, played in many of the Barn Dances, Bars, Dance Halls and more.  Had a blast at the Festivals, county Fairs and Rodeos.  Yes, I was a GI but I spent more time as an Entertainer than a GI during my 20+ years in the Military and got to know the areas I was stationed at extremely well.  And I know your area, obviously better than you do or are trying to convince us that you do.  Considering that whole area is still frozen in time, nothing has changed outside of the number of Microwaves.  So don't tell me how peaceful it is there.  It only appears like that on the surface.  Deep down, it's a powder keg waiting to go off just like every other area in the United States.  Well, cupcake, your area ain't anything special.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




Then you admit there is something changing that is increasing crime.
And it is not gun access, as that has not changed.
And if something has changed, that makes people more dangerous, it is that which needs to be fixed.
You can make all the gun laws in the world, and it won't make anyone less dangerous or reduce the number of murders.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



You can eliminate every single murder, but that does not necessarily make anything better.
For example, the easiest way to prevent crime is to just preventive incarceration of everyone.
That not only is what someone like Kim Jung Un does, but is what gun control starts trying to do.
Things are  not made better simply by suppressing symptoms.
The whole point of a democratic republic is that you don't want to suppress anything, but instead want to make everything as free and natural as possible, to encourage individual freedom and expression.  You want to avoid corruption, where a central elite harms everyone else, for the benefit of a few.
That is always the purpose of gun control.
To prevent the majority from being able to resist the abuse by the few.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 4, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Again you are saying there are things that are wrong and getting worse.
So then the last thing anyone should want is gun control to just suppress symptoms.
The violence used to be much lower, so something is wrong now.
And it is not weapons access, because you used to be able to buy Thompson machine guns for $27 from 1918 to 1934 when they added a $200 registration stamp charge.  And they remained legal until 1986.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
You are a Delusional old coot aren’t you?


----------



## Hellbilly (Oct 5, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded



“Thou shalt not kill.”
-God


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 5, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> ...




Actually, it is "Thou shalt not do murder."


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 5, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You got bagged so you revert back to insulting.  You lose once again, fruitcake.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 5, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



The LAST people I want to have a gun is law enforcement or the military, who are people paid by the corrupt politicians of the wealthy elite.
Historically the destruction of all democratic republics and the start of all dictatorships comes from the police or military.
Whether they start with good intentions or not, those getting paid tend to begin doing whatever those who sign their paycheck want them to do.

Instead, I believe in the general population of the democratic republic.
I see them as being the least violent, corrupt, suspect, and abusive.
When they do commit a crime, it usually is from some greater harm that they have no control over.
Like injustice, poverty, lack of opportunity of education, jobs, health care, etc.
If you want to reduce crime in the general population, you do NOT want gun control,  but instead you want progrressive social reform that reduces the CAUSES of crime and misery.  
Trying to just suppress crime while leaving the causes, is just pure evil.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




Yes...the left attacks the police and military first, driving out good people who don't want the hassle just to be called names or sued and put in prison for trying to do their job.  Then, the left lowers the standards for both, and the police and military are filled with leftist goons who are more than happy to be corrupt and violent as long as their left wing masters pay them .......that is what you see in all these left wing controlled, mad max countries...


----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Lol
Says an anti-gun nutter


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 5, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...




That is just mindless jingoism.
You know as well as I do that the police and military are always associated with a strong, dictatorial, central government.
The founders were against that, and wanted the opposite, decentralized, where you arm the population instead, for real citizen soldiers, and citizen posses of a real democratic republic.
Paychecks automatically corrupt.
There is no way around that.
Doing a job that should  not necessarily be done, is not a noble thing.
For example, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, the invasion of Iraq, etc.


----------



## Flash (Oct 5, 2019)

Here is another example of why we can't trust the filthy ass Liberals with our Constitutional rights.

A man in Conn gets a firearm stolen from his car and he reports it and then the jackbooted government thugs comes to his home and confiscates the rest of firearms.  Asshole police for doing what the assholes politicians told them to do.

Connecticut Man Reports Pistol Stolen – Police Seize His Guns

*Man Reports His Pistol Stolen — So Police Take Away All His Guns and License to Carry*

*A Connecticut man had his pistol permit and firearms seized by authorities after he reported the theft of one of his guns on Monday.*

Officers responded on Tuesday to a report of car burglary made by Christopher Jerome, 26, the New Haven Register reported.

He told police that, believing he would get back into the vehicle shortly, he didn’t lock his car doors after parking on Monday evening.

Jerome said the next day he discovered his pistol had been lifted from the car’s unlocked glove box and the driver’s side door was open.

Police arrested Jerome on a reckless endangerment charge.

Under a recently implemented state law, police then entered Jerome’s home and removed the rest of his firearms: a Glock, another handgun and an AR-15.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 5, 2019)

Flash said:


> Here is another example of why we can't trust the filthy ass Liberals with our Constitutional rights.
> 
> A man in Conn gets a firearm stolen from his car and he reports it and then the jackbooted government thugs comes to his home and confiscates the rest of firearms.  Asshole police for doing what the assholes politicians told them to do.
> 
> ...


So, the victim of theft gets arrested for reporting it?  Next time, don't call the cops to enforce laws.  That shit never works.  


God, I hate government bullshit. 

.


----------



## Flash (Oct 5, 2019)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another example of why we can't trust the filthy ass Liberals with our Constitutional rights.
> ...




That just shows you how batshit crazy the Liberals are.  You cannot trust them with your Constitutional rights.  They will take Liberty away from in a heartbeat if they can get away with it.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)

Flash said:


> Here is another example of why we can't trust the filthy ass Liberals with our Constitutional rights.
> 
> A man in Conn gets a firearm stolen from his car and he reports it and then the jackbooted government thugs comes to his home and confiscates the rest of firearms.  Asshole police for doing what the assholes politicians told them to do.
> 
> ...


Lol
That’s the goal of progressives they want to get rid of the Second Amendment all together... fact


----------



## Flash (Oct 5, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another example of why we can't trust the filthy ass Liberals with our Constitutional rights.
> ...




Liberals cannot stand the idea of Liberty.  It is alien to them.  They only understand the slavery of collectivism.

The voters in Conn were absolute idiots electing representatives that passed that stupid law.  Liberals cannot ever be trusted with the right to vote, can they?


----------



## miketx (Oct 5, 2019)




----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)

Flash said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Yup,

The second amendment is the only amendment with teeth to it...


----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)




----------



## miketx (Oct 5, 2019)

Yeah, it wasn't the deer that were coming.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)




----------



## Hellbilly (Oct 5, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another example of why we can't trust the filthy ass Liberals with our Constitutional rights.
> ...



Because you said so?
Not likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)




----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Lol
Did the collective tell you to say that?


----------



## miketx (Oct 5, 2019)




----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2019)




----------



## Hellbilly (Oct 5, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Do you always ask stupid questions?

Yeah. I guess you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 5, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I took you out of the box and once again, it's time to clean up the gene pool.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 5, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Billyboom said:
> ...



I keep putting in the ignore hoping he'll get better.  Then he gets lonely and does settle down.  Then he goes off like he is right now and it's back in the box.  I think I've learned my lesson on Rustbucket.  HE stays in the box.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 5, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Actions v. Words

.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 5, 2019)

Gun control makes no sense at all.
First of all, as a democratic republic, it is not legal to limit civilian access to weapons.
It is the average civilian who is the actual source of any and all authority in a democratic republic.
As soon as you have gun control, with elite professional forces armed above the average citizens, you have a dictatorship.
Second is that fact that if there are dangerous people who are either criminal or violent, then they are not going to bother being deterred by minor gun laws when their intent is to commit murder, which has the ultimate penalties.
And there is no way to stop them from being armed.
They can just pay more for illegal weapons, or they can kill far more with explosives, poisons, arson, etc.
Clearly you have to arrest violent criminals, not try to make the whole world nerf safe.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 5, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> So I feel more comfortable living in oz, U.K., you in our gun loaded country. Each to his own.


Wait...you’re not even a U.S. citizen and yet you’ve spent weeks and weeks and weeks arguing about U.S. rights and U.S. laws? W....T....F?


----------



## P@triot (Oct 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> In the US, we do not. We have a government that is constantly illegally *invading innocent countries*, for colonialism and imperialism, *murdering millions*.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> And it is not weapons access, because you used to be able to buy Thompson machine guns for $27 from 1918 to 1934 when they added a $200 registration stamp charge.  *And they remained legal until 1986*.


Just so you know, Rigby, Thompson sub-machine guns are _still_ legal. They were “grandfathered in”. What became illegal in 1986 was any fully automatic manufactured after that point. I have friends that own Tommy Guns, Uzi’s, etc. purchased in the last decade - but all manufactured prior to 1986.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 5, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> “Thou shalt not kill.” - God
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


“Thou didn’t kill....thou *self-defended*” - God


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 5, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



It is easy to show an intent to wide out all civilian weapons.
Look at the proposed Assault Weapons ban.
An assault weapon is not military or any thing in particular.
During the 1700s it was a coach gun, also called a blunderbuss, with a flared barrel.
During the 1800s it was a pair of revolver pistols, whether percussion cap or with cased bullets.
During the Spanish American War and WWI, it was pump shotguns.
During WWII it was carbines.

So actually, when someone talks about an assault weapons ban, they actually mean all pistols, carbines, and shotgun.
In fact, there hardly is anything they don't mean.
And when it comes down to it, they likely do mean everything really, but just want to start with the words, "assault weapon" because they think they have better chances working their PR job on that.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 5, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > And it is not weapons access, because you used to be able to buy Thompson machine guns for $27 from 1918 to 1934 when they added a $200 registration stamp charge.  *And they remained legal until 1986*.
> ...



Correct.
They just became very expensive or semi auto after 1986.
I was trying to keep it simple though.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 5, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > In the US, we do not. We have a government that is constantly illegally *invading innocent countries*, for colonialism and imperialism, *murdering millions*.
> ...



How many times did we illegally invade Mexico?
The Spanish American War was fake and illegal, since we now know the USS Maine boiler blew up by itself.
WWI was illegal because we took the side of the terrorists who had assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and used illegal civilian food blockade to get Germany to surrender.
Korea was illegal because we had placed Syngman Rhee in power, even though he was a US citizen, and he committed massacres.
Vietnam was obviously illegal.
So were Grenada, Panama, and Haiti.
We murdered almost half a million innocents in Iraq.
Likely about half a million innocents also murdered in Afghanistan.
Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are also subjected to illegal regime change by the US.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are also subjected to illegal regime change by the US.


“Illegal” by _who_?!? Don’t even say “international law”. That is an idiotic concept. We are a sovereign nation. We do not answer to anyone (nor does England, nor does Australia, nor does Canada, etc.).

There is nothing “illegal” about ousting vicious dictators guilty of human atrocities. Nothing. No matter how hard you try to make a case for it.


----------



## Hellbilly (Oct 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> > “Thou shalt not kill.” - God
> ...



Link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P@triot (Oct 6, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Billyboom said:
> ...


Uh...you responded to the link. Post #1.


----------



## Hellbilly (Oct 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I’m betting your shoe size is higher than your IQ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > So I feel more comfortable living in oz, U.K., you in our gun loaded country. Each to his own.
> ...


Apologies.
I've just lived in oz and uk for work.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 6, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> I’m betting your shoe size is higher than your IQ.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Says the genius who responds to a link then asks for a link two posts later.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 6, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Apologies. I've just lived in oz and uk for work.


Oh...so you are a U.S. citizen but just living abroad for work? Well that's different then. If you're actually a U.S. citizen then you have a vested interest in our laws.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies. I've just lived in oz and uk for work.
> ...


I go back and forward.
You should try it sometime.
Euro trains and healthcare are awesome 
I just look at laws written by slave owners and rapists with a jaundiced eye. Just Question why every rube should be allowed to pack
I do believe women and blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote though.
Merry Xmas darlin


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 7, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> I go back and forward.
> You should try it sometime.
> Euro trains and healthcare are awesome
> I just look at laws written by slave owners and rapists with a jaundiced eye. Just Question why every rube should be allowed to pack
> ...



I bet you don't want them armed either.  

.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 18, 2019)

Thank God for her *right* to keep and bear arms. There’s a reason that the party of sexual assault desperately wants to disarm women.

Woman awakened in middle of night by two men allegedly trying break into her home. She grabs a gun — and they pay the ultimate price.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 21, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for her *right* to keep and bear arms. There’s a reason that the party of sexual assault desperately wants to disarm women.
> Woman awakened in middle of night by two men allegedly trying break into her home. She grabs a gun — and they pay the ultimate price.


The United States is unique among the countries of the world in that women are freely able to carry firearms for personal defense..
Anti-gun loons hate this will do all they can to change it.
Why do anti-gun loons hate women?


----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...

Crooks allegedly looking to steal cars speed toward armed homeowner, neighbor. The good guys with guns come out on top.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...




Moron....you live in the country that bought and transported the slave before the U.S. was even created...you dumb ass........Britain started the slave trade you moron....are you really that stupid?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for her *right* to keep and bear arms. There’s a reason that the party of sexual assault desperately wants to disarm women.
> ...




Yes......the democrat males believe it is their right to sexually assault women, even low ranking democrat women....just look at the democrat party leadership and their supporters.....so why would they want women to be able to fight back?


----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...

These Gun Owners Were Able to Confront Criminals in September


----------



## P@triot (Oct 28, 2019)

Every single day in this country, an armed citizen prevents a crime. Every. Single. Day.

Driver allegedly follows disabled vet, family to their home in 'road rage' incident — and approaches them. Then the veteran arms himself.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 28, 2019)

This is *exactly* why the left wants to disarm the American people. The left has been abusing and assaulting women since this nation was founded.

Harrowing 999 recording captures thug savagely beating his ex-girlfriend


----------



## P@triot (Oct 29, 2019)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. This woman is alive, a crime was averted, and a thug is arrested because of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Woman allegedly shoots at fleeing robber who shot at her — then he calls 911 to report gunfire. It doesn't work out so well for him.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 3, 2019)

This incident did not take place in the United States. However, it is yet another example of why we have a *right* to defend ourselves.

Good guys with a gun prevent crime _every_ single day.

Round In The Chamber: Bad Guy Needs To Rack, Good Guy Already Chambered


----------



## P@triot (Nov 4, 2019)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. This woman is alive, and her unborn baby is safe, because of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Cops: Homeowner shoots man who broke front window, tried to climb through it. Homeowner warned suspect he had gun, family says.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 5, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. This woman is alive, and her unborn baby is safe, because of our 2nd Amendment rights.
> 
> Cops: Homeowner shoots man who broke front window, tried to climb through it. Homeowner warned suspect he had gun, family says.


She could have done the same thing with a 6-shot Smith & Wesson .38 police special... she didn't need an AR-15 for that.

Hell... wielding a 6-shot Smith & Wesson .38 police special would have been far easier in such close quarters.


----------



## sparky (Nov 5, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms








~S~


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> She could have done the same thing with a 6-shot Smith & Wesson .38 police special... she didn't need an AR-15 for that.


Your opinion of what someone needs has no bearing on what that someone has a right to own and use.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 5, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > She could have done the same thing with a 6-shot Smith & Wesson .38 police special... she didn't need an AR-15 for that.
> ...


And that's exactly what's going to be up for broad nationwide discussion in the coming years...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Fact remains:
Your opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. This woman is alive, and her unborn baby is safe, because of our 2nd Amendment rights.
> ...


Spoken like a true leftist completely clueless about firearms!


----------



## P@triot (Nov 5, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> And that's exactly what's going to be up for broad nationwide discussion in the coming years...


Yeah...you nitwits have been saying that since the 1970’s. 

How’s that been working out for you?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> ...Fact remains: Your opinion doesn't matter.


True... however, the opinions of dozens of millions of similarly-inclined Americans will...


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Tell me where I'm wrong... tell me how an AR-15 is easier to wield in close quarters than a .38 police special...


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > And that's exactly what's going to be up for broad nationwide discussion in the coming years...
> ...


Not so well, so far.. but multi-generational efforts require multiple generations to reach their desired goal...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms. This woman is alive, and her unborn baby is safe, because of our 2nd Amendment rights.
> ...



You just came up with the absolute best reason that Police Special (which is a Ruger) is the ideal home defense weapon and the AR is one of the poorest.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ...Fact remains: Your opinion doesn't matter.
> ...


The opinion of millions of Americans doesn't outweigh the protections afforded by the constitution.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> *Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms*



I just want to know ONE THING:
Why is everything good, RIGHT, 
And what is wrong whatever is LEFT over!​


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 6, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Until such time as...

1. SCOTUS reinterprets the Constitution sufficiently to allow a more sane gun-control, or...

2. Popular momentum for sane gun-control facilitates a fresh Amendment that removes existing barriers, or...

3. Popular momentum for sane gun-control facilitates nationwide gun-control mechanisms that will hold-up under SCOTUS review


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Do us a favor:
Hold your breath.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 6, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Or

We kill all the fucking commies and live happily ever after.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2019)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The US will collapse under the weight of its federal debt long before the multi-generational change he fantasizes about comes into play - at which point,we will indeed kill all the commies.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 8, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Tell me where I'm wrong... tell me how an AR-15 is easier to wield in close quarters than a .38 police special...


You're wrong because you don't know a damn thing about CQC. Unless the battle is in a cardboard box, you're much better off with the AR-15. There is a reason that Special Forces clears houses with rifles and not ".38 specials"


----------



## P@triot (Nov 8, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


*Exactly! *


----------



## P@triot (Nov 9, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> ...but multi-generational efforts require multiple generations to reach their desired goal


Well then you guys are _screwed_. For starters, you keep killing future generations of libtards because you people think that children are a curse, abortion is the bomb, and the planet is in "danger" from babies. 

No wonder you've been unsuccessful!


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 9, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but multi-generational efforts require multiple generations to reach their desired goal
> ...


Yes.

Please continue to feel comfortable that you've got this locked-up for generations to come.

As your political fortunes fall - and they're about to, once again - others who do not think like you will rush to fill the vacuum.

Face it... next year... or ten years from now... at some point, we're gonna have one too many school massacres, then the reforms begin.

And those reforms will come leaning on the same Federal law that allows government to ban military-grade weapons from civilian hands.

By then... obstructing progress for as long as you have... the bans and restrictions will be more onerous than if you had played ball earlier.

But... it is the Fate of Man... not to be able to see beyond the end of his nose, so... you will reap then what you now sow.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 9, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> As your political fortunes fall - and they're about to, once again - others who do not think like you will rush to fill the vacuum.


Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We heard this hilarious idiocy during the Obama Administration. And then DONALD freaking TRUMP whipped your ass. And the Tea Party whipped your ass.

Americans aren't not surrendering America. Ever.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> Please continue to feel comfortable that you've got this locked-up for generations to come.
> 
> As your political fortunes fall - and they're about to, once again - others who do not think like you will rush to fill the vacuum.
> 
> ...


^^^
This is a lie


----------



## P@triot (Nov 11, 2019)

It’s good to see the American people sending fascists home.


> ...the government exists to serve the people and should *not* be in the business of doing "things" to us or for us.


We will not surrender our rights.

'Anytime someone talks about taking away your ability to defend yourself, you are in danger.' — Chad Prather


----------



## elongobardi (Nov 12, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Civilians can’t own military grade weapons Asshole.     There are big differences.    You liberals all sound like fools when it comes to guns.   Like Biden who we can’t let people own magazines that hold a thousand clips.    Your fucking retarded.     


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 12, 2019)

elongobardi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



In shootoffs, a well made civilian AR-15 custom outshoots the M-16A-4 and the M-4.  It's parts exceed Military Grade.  But if you have a Colt Model 750 or a Colt LE6920, both are listed as military grade and both are AR-15s.  MilSpec means all parts come from either Colt or FN.  And all but a couple of those parts comes from the same parts bins that the M-16 and the M-4 is built from.  The difference between a Colt LE6920 or Colt Model 750 Carbine is negligible from a M-16 or M-4.  Even a cheap piece of junk AR-15 can hang with a M-4 for a few mag loads before it starts falling apart.  Rustbucket would be glad to sell you one of those.  Save your money and buy a good one though.  There are some good ones for under 1000 bucks that are either MilSpec or exceed MilSpec.  And you can customize it to fit you.  

The fruitcakes that go for the "High Body Count" records don't pack the good stuff.  They own the junk.  One of the reasons the body counts are higher is because of the malfunction rate.  People that invest in the MilSpec or better than MilSpec aren't the ones that shoot up the Schools or public gatherings.  I would class the AR that sells for less than 500 bucks new right up there with the old Saturday Night Specials.  And those banned at the factory level for many reasons.  

We all need to rethink about the AR and the AK.  There are ways to address it that will get them out of the fruitcakes hands without anyone losing the better ARs and AKs.  Think about it.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 12, 2019)

there4eyeM said:


> Nukes!


The single most retarded argument in the history of gun rights. "Do you want people to have nukes ?"


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 12, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


"Military grade" what a honking load of bullshit nobody in the regular US military uses an AR-15.


----------



## there4eyeM (Nov 12, 2019)

[/QUOTE]

In shootoffs, a well made civilian AR-15 custom outshoots the M-16A-4 and the M-4.  It's parts exceed Military Grade.  But if you have a Colt Model 750 or a Colt LE6920, both are listed as military grade and both are AR-15s.  MilSpec means all parts come from either Colt or FN.  And all but a couple of those parts comes from the same parts bins that the M-16 and the M-4 is built from.  The difference between a Colt LE6920 or Colt Model 750 Carbine is negligible from a M-16 or M-4.  Even a cheap piece of junk AR-15 can hang with a M-4 for a few mag loads before it starts falling apart.  Rustbucket would be glad to sell you one of those.  Save your money and buy a good one though.  There are some good ones for under 1000 bucks that are either MilSpec or exceed MilSpec.  And you can customize it to fit you. 

The fruitcakes that go for the "High Body Count" records don't pack the good stuff.  They own the junk.  One of the reasons the body counts are higher is because of the malfunction rate.  People that invest in the MilSpec or better than MilSpec aren't the ones that shoot up the Schools or public gatherings.  I would class the AR that sells for less than 500 bucks new right up there with the old Saturday Night Specials.  And those banned at the factory level for many reasons. 

We all need to rethink about the AR and the AK.  There are ways to address it that will get them out of the fruitcakes hands without anyone losing the better ARs and AKs.  Think about it.[/QUOTE]
Amazingly, there actually are some rational people who participate here. 
As said elsewhere, the "weakbrains" go for that M16 look at discount. It's fake, they're fake, their obsession with arms is fundamentally sick.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2019)

In shootoffs, a well made civilian AR-15 custom outshoots the M-16A-4 and the M-4.  It's parts exceed Military Grade.  But if you have a Colt Model 750 or a Colt LE6920, both are listed as military grade and both are AR-15s.  MilSpec means all parts come from either Colt or FN.  And all but a couple of those parts comes from the same parts bins that the M-16 and the M-4 is built from.  The difference between a Colt LE6920 or Colt Model 750 Carbine is negligible from a M-16 or M-4.  Even a cheap piece of junk AR-15 can hang with a M-4 for a few mag loads before it starts falling apart.  Rustbucket would be glad to sell you one of those.  Save your money and buy a good one though.  There are some good ones for under 1000 bucks that are either MilSpec or exceed MilSpec.  And you can customize it to fit you.

The fruitcakes that go for the "High Body Count" records don't pack the good stuff.  They own the junk.  One of the reasons the body counts are higher is because of the malfunction rate.  People that invest in the MilSpec or better than MilSpec aren't the ones that shoot up the Schools or public gatherings.  I would class the AR that sells for less than 500 bucks new right up there with the old Saturday Night Specials.  And those banned at the factory level for many reasons.

We all need to rethink about the AR and the AK.  There are ways to address it that will get them out of the fruitcakes hands without anyone losing the better ARs and AKs.  Think about it.[/QUOTE]
Amazingly, there actually are some rational people who participate here.
As said elsewhere, the "weakbrains" go for that M16 look at discount. It's fake, they're fake, their obsession with arms is fundamentally sick.[/QUOTE]
Lol
Daryl is delusional and apparently has dementia...


----------



## anynameyouwish (Nov 12, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded




not god


the constitution

and the liberals who wrote it!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 12, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



The Colt Model numbers before they are stamped for the M-16A-4 is the AR-15 Model 604.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 13, 2019)

elongobardi said:


> Civilians can’t own military grade weapons Asshole. There are big differences. You liberals all sound like fools when it comes to guns.


I've told Duh-ryl that many times. But the dumb ass still wants people to believe that Americans can purchase modern, fully automatic weapons. I even posted the actual law and additional information from the ATF's website.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 19, 2019)

Once again, an armed citizen prevents a mass-shooting. The left’s favorite firearm lie is that an armed citizen has “never” prevented a mass-shooting, when in fact, an armed citizen prevents a mass-shooting dozens and dozens and dozens of times per year.

3 people dead after suspect opens fire at Okla. Walmart. A good guy with a gun reportedly stopped suspect from shooting more.


----------



## elongobardi (Nov 19, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



You can talk till you blue in the face.  Our military’s weapons are much better then what we own or even fix up.   Plus the 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about scary looking guns.  Not one Democrat knows anything about firearms.   There interviews are funny.   Kind of like listening to your dumbass talk.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elongobardi (Nov 19, 2019)

P@triot said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Civilians can’t own military grade weapons Asshole. There are big differences. You liberals all sound like fools when it comes to guns.
> ...



Yeah.   He just doesn’t get it but that is like all libtards.    


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Nov 20, 2019)

elongobardi said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



The Cops know better hence the creation of the LE6920 from the parts bin of the M-16 and the M-4.  Until they started fielding those, the Cops were just plain outgunned because they were facing all sorts of Military type weapons even if they were only semi auto.  

The AR isn't scary looking.  It's Function Looking.  Just like the M-16 and the M-4 is.  If you think the AR looks scary maybe you shouldn't own one.  I don't own one because I don't need the function of one.  I had enough of those functions during my 20 plus years in the Military.  

And since I got my eyes fixed (got my 20/15 vision back) that makes me nearly as accurate as I used to be once I work out my breathing.  And as a long gun operator, I was thought to be blind.  Most had 20/10 vision.  But I could still make the cut through hard work.  Luckily, I failed the syke exam.  I won't own a gun like the AR.  In the civilian world, it's too restrictive.  I don't need anything whose total design function is short to medium ranged whole mass killing.  I do need a weapon for short range home and personal defense or long range and the AR fits neither bill.  But I may vote Democrat, who knows that Nov 7th brings.  Does that mean I need to get rid of all my firearms on November 6ths and have a Lobotomy?  

About being a dumbass.  I probably am.  But it's kind of you to notice.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 21, 2019)

Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a serious crime. Every. Single. Day.

These Law-Abiding People Used Guns to Defend Themselves in October


----------



## WEATHER53 (Nov 21, 2019)

I’ll put this here and not thread title. I’m down by Andrews AFB and something just went out of there sounding like a fighter jet. If I’m incorrect so sorry but Ive heard them before and they sound like what I just heard


----------



## P@triot (Nov 26, 2019)

Kondor3 said:


> And those reforms will come leaning on the same Federal law that allows government to ban military-grade weapons from civilian hands.


Psst...stupid...that was already done (33 years ago in 1986).


----------



## P@triot (Nov 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> So I feel more comfortable living in oz, U.K., you in our gun loaded country. Each to his own.


Do you know _why_ you feel more “comfortable” living in the UK? Because ignorance is bliss.

Khan's London: Teen Stabbings Reach Decade High


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 27, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > So I feel more comfortable living in oz, U.K., you in our gun loaded country. Each to his own.
> ...





P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > So I feel more comfortable living in oz, U.K., you in our gun loaded country. Each to his own.
> ...


No, feel safer.
Although I made my millions here off off rubes.
Good old American way, I've got mine screw the rest.
I'm guessing, Not another one off blaze ?
You never post the 100 gun deaths DAILY here?
300 shootings DAILY?
Same in both places, I and you don't live in bad areas
Happy thanksgiving, or as the say there they celebrate it on July 4


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


And omg I thought it was The Blaze.
Breitbart??!! You are kidding, another commie site?
How's your commie SS ?returned it yet on principle?
Boy this is hilarious for my oz relatives, keep the USA zero college comments up


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 29, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > So I feel more comfortable living in oz, U.K., you in our gun loaded country. Each to his own.
> ...


Darn, hasn't the Blaze told you about the London Bridge stabbing?
A shame no one was killed.
Wonder what it would have been like if he had an arsenal?
Is at-15 what they call the pantywaists protection?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 29, 2019)

Daryl Hunt said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




I disagree the AR design, whether AR-15 or M-4, is very functional at all.
First of all, the 8 lug locking bolt is way too many lugs, and is far too easily jammed.  
Most rifles use only 1 or 2 lugs, so that there is much less friction for dirt.
Then there is the direct impingement gas tube, which is very difficult to take out and clean, while it is so narrow as to very easily clog up.
Then there is the fact the .223 is just way too small of a projectile, and velocity can not make up for small mass because you then lose too much to friction.
Also that small of a mass will not stop someone from returning fire, even if you hit them.
That is why the ,223 is not legal for hunting deer or anything larger.
Even if it does eventually kill them, they are likely to go for miles first, and that is not safe for home protection.
I won't own an AR either, but mostly because it is just too expensive for what you get.
A used FN-FAL in .308 is about half the price.

So the point is that anyone supporting an assault weapons ban really does not know anything.
It is not just that AR type weapons do not need banning for any particular reason, but that it contradicts the principles of a democratic republic, to ban anything.  The delegated authority for police/military to have AR type weapons comes from our individual right own one.  If we can't, then we can't authorize police/military to have them either.  Basic 14th amendment concept.  The police/military have to be equal to us all under the law, not superior to us.  That would be impossible in a democratic republic.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 29, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a serious crime. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> These Law-Abiding People Used Guns to Defend Themselves in October



More like 7,000 a day, considering there are about 2.5 million defensive firearm uses a year.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 29, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > And those reforms will come leaning on the same Federal law that allows government to ban military-grade weapons from civilian hands.
> ...



Actually, no one can ban military grade weapons, since civilians has to design, make, test, etc., them.
All government can do is regulate and restrict them, to a reasonable degree.
If you want to make your own, they can't stop you, and can only make you pay a tax stamp.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 29, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



The murder rate in the US is artificial because it was intentionally created with the War on Drugs.
Since drug profits can not benefit from the safety of banks or police, there are huge drug turf wars going on all the time.  And that would happen is all firearms were illegal to everyone or not.  The UK just does not have a large of a drug problem because I think the UK tends to ignore it more.


----------



## Terri4Trump (Nov 29, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded




Gun's are the great equalizer. Thats why women like me carry one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 29, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree the AR design, whether AR-15 or M-4, is very functional at all.
> First of all, the 8 lug locking bolt is way too many lugs, and is far too easily jammed.
> Most rifles use only 1 or 2 lugs, so that there is much less friction for dirt.


Smaller lugs means less rotation needed to lock/unlock.


> Then there is the direct impingement gas tube, which is very difficult to take out and clean, while it is so narrow as to very easily clog up.


Piston-driven AR uppers are cheap and plentiful.


> I won't own an AR either, but mostly because it is just too expensive for what you get.
> A used FN-FAL in .308 is about half the price.


New Bushmaster ARs are selling for $399.95, so I doubt it.


> So the point is that anyone supporting an assault weapons ban really does not know anything.


Unquestionably true.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 1, 2019)

Every single day in America, an armed citizen prevents a serious crime. Every. Single. Day.

Bread delivery man with firearm made honorary sheriff's deputy for stopping armed robber


----------



## P@triot (Dec 1, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Breitbart??!! You are kidding, another commie site?


What an immature and idiotic comment. The article is 100% accurate. You just keep attacking the messengers because you can’t dispute the message.

And communism is left-wing. It’s your side of the aisle. So you’re just insulting yourself and your ideology.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 1, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Darn, hasn't the Blaze told you about the London Bridge stabbing? A shame no one was killed. Wonder what it would have been like if he had an arsenal? Is at-15 what they call the pantywaists protection?


There wouldn’t have been a “London Bridge” stabbing or shooting in the U.S. That shit only happens where idiot leftists ban firearms. Thugs live for unarmed sheep to slaughter.

Thankfully, here in the greatest country in the world, we keep introducing millions and millions more firearms in society!

2019 Black Friday Firearm Background Checks Rank 2nd Highest in History


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Darn, hasn't the Blaze told you about the London Bridge stabbing? A shame no one was killed. Wonder what it would have been like if he had an arsenal? Is at-15 what they call the pantywaists protection?
> ...



I presume The Blaze again?
Ever wondered why they don't report daily items like this?
A kid is shot in Philly every 3.7 days. The crisis continued this weekend.
Omg no, it's a us gun, not a uk knife.
I thought we only had 350000000?
We definitely need tanks in our double wide garages don't you think?
Let me guess, you will long be in your grave before the terrorists attack your double wide.
Dream on though about the shark joke.
And how many times have you repelled your home invaders again?
I keep asking, zero response.
Merry Xmas darlin, hope you make it that far


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> 2019 Black Friday Firearm Background Checks Rank 2nd Highest in History


Nice.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



Apologies, didn't know you had graduated to Breitbart

Still sucking off your commie SS?
I expect you think you paid for the benefits you suck off?


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Not an armed defender in sight


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 2, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Gawd, do you really spend hours at night looking for blaze one offs?
Try studying for college


----------



## Questioner (Dec 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment *right*. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.
> 
> Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded


Good for her.


----------



## Questioner (Dec 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> > The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?
> ...


Let me know how that works out in practice, as opposed to theory - or why anyone would care.

As far as originalism goes, per Justice Scalia, amendments were intended to take into account updates in technology, so I agree that people who argue it only referred to 18th century firearms are wrong on that one.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 3, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Ever wondered why they don't report daily items like this?
> A kid is shot in Philly every 3.7 days. The crisis continued this weekend.


Not the least bit surprising. Wherever Dumbocrats are in charge, poverty, misery, and violence ensues.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Gawd, do you really spend hours at night looking for blaze one offs?


Ask yourself a _really_ important question: why do *facts* have you in such a tizzy?

You were conditioned to believe in lies. And now that you are waking up to the realization that everything you believed in was wrong, you’re angry.


----------



## Flash (Dec 4, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Then there is the direct impingement gas tube, which is very difficult to take out and clean, while it is so narrow as to very easily clog up.
> ...



I have owned and shot ARs for 50 decades.  I presently own 30 and I have built hundreds.  I shoot them weekly.  As a firearms instructor I teach classes with them and as a range officer see and supervise other people using them.  I used the M-16 in Vietnam in battle and I have a Class III M-16 now.

I disagree with your comment about direct impingement.   I have never seen a gas tube fail except in meltdown videos where they intentionally heated up the AR to see how long it would go before failure.  By the way, an AK will fail with a high cycle rate.

I also disagree with you about lethal the .223 can be.  A .223 bullet will kill you.  Make no mistake about it.  Both M-193 and M-855 are deadly rounds up to about 250 yds.  They can also be deadly at 500 yds.

The .233 military round is high velocity and it fragments and creates a pretty good size wound cavity.  I have seen the lethal effect in Vietnam.  

A FMJ commercial bullet is not made  to fragment and is not as lethal as the military rounds.  I only use them for range shooting.  If I had to use an AR for shelf defense I would use the right bullet. 

A .223 can be effective for deer hunting. A 68 grain soft point will be very effective.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd, do you really spend hours at night looking for blaze one offs?
> ...


Who conditioned me?
The commies?
Millionaire drug buddies?
Care  to quote another blaze fact?
Takes you all night to find one
I agree with the single one blaze knife attack, daily gun deaths.
You don't?


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd, do you really spend hours at night looking for blaze one offs?
> ...


I'm not in a tizzy darlin.
Just having my daily laugh at the SO BRAVE pantywaists who were never in an air raid shelter or a hand to hand in their lives.
And probably never had a relative killed in a war.
Packing packing though, you never know when you might have to spring in defense of someone.
I'm still waiting for your multiple acts of valor!!!
Keep asking, zero


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 4, 2019)

Flash said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...


Who hoo, I'm impressed.
As they say "if you are too dumb to get a real job, join the military.
Great indoctrination and commie VA benefits


----------



## Flash (Dec 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




I worked for 35 years.  Three of them was in the military.  Had I not joined I would have been drafted so you can take your stupid hate and shove it up your ass.

I have also never taken a cent of VA benefits because I don't trust the fucking government to take care of me so once again you don't know what you are talking about.

Go spew your ignorance elsewhere.

The AR is a great platform for hunting, defense and recreational use.

If you don't like it for those uses then don't buy one.  Nobody gives a shit.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd, do you really spend hours at night looking for blaze one offs?
> ...


Here's a fact?
Just in case The Blaze didn't tell you
8 people shot overnight in Memphis, 19-year-old mom killed
Darn those uppity nixxers!
Actually was it a black or white person?
I didn't even look


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 4, 2019)

Flash said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Me particularly.
Making a nice living off paranoid people I guess?
Love it, I've got mine, screw the rest, great American way
Nice foul mouth by the way.
Ever considered college?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> As they say "if you are too dumb to get a real job, join the military. Great indoctrination and commie VA benefits


As they say, if you survive under the freedom someone else provides but show nothing but contempt for those who sacrifice because you’re an ungrateful asshole, be a leftist!


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Mommy and Daddy


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Want to bet?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Love it, I've got mine, screw the rest, great American way


“I don’t have mine...and I’m too lazy to earn it. So I’m going to ask the government to steal it from someone else and give it to me”. Don’t love it. The Soviet Union way.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2019)

So tell me again how “nobody needs a full automatic” firearm...

Video captures 'youth flash mob' vandalizing Chicago store, assaulting owners, during Christmas event


----------



## P@triot (Dec 4, 2019)

Flash said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Who hoo, I'm impressed. As they say "if you are too dumb to get a real job, join the military. Great indoctrination and commie VA benefits
> ...


On behalf of the American people, thank you for your service. We *greatly* appreciate your selfless sacrifice.

Can you imagine being an ungrateful piece of shit like that Ph3iron. Dude should stick to his own dumb ass inferior country and get his nose out of the U.S.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 29, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms.

BREAKING: Gunman opens fire in Texas church and gets taken down within seconds by parishioners


----------



## regent (Dec 30, 2019)

Is tear-gas or any gas legal under the second amendment?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 30, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms.
> 
> BREAKING: Gunman opens fire in Texas church and gets taken down within seconds by parishioners


To think, not long ago, it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a church inTexas.  

Progress!!!


Fuck all commies!!


Machine guns or Valhalla!!!


.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 30, 2019)

regent said:


> Is tear-gas or any gas legal under the second amendment?


Do you want legal analysis or opinions?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 31, 2019)

regent said:


> Is tear-gas or any gas legal under the second amendment?


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.

You tell us.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2019)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment Saved These Gun Owners’ Lives in April


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 1, 2020)

basquebromance said:


> Trump and his paid stooges here are intimidated by the NRA, my friends!


Get help soon.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 1, 2020)

Thank God for her *right* to keep and bear arms.

Burglar breaks into Las Vegas home of armed woman, and pays the ultimate price


----------



## P@triot (Jan 3, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.

Police: Victim of armed home invasion has his own gun, shoots intruders — one of whom is his ex-girlfriend


----------



## P@triot (Jan 9, 2020)

This is how you deal with the assholes of the left....

Trump hater orders man to remove MAGA hat; he refuses. So Trump hater makes threat, takes swing at hat — and victim pulls out his gun.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 18, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.

Intruder allegedly puts gun in homeowner's face, demands money, orders him to room. Turns out victim's double-barrel is stored there — and 76-year-old fires it.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Jan 18, 2020)

That right has been set aside by a Governor based on speculation, suggestion, guilt by association and fear
As always with liberals, feelings over facts.
He should try and declare “We can’t let large groups of blacks assemble with megaphones....we know there will be trouble”


----------



## P@triot (Jan 23, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.

Pizza delivery driver ambushed by four males intent on robbing him — so he pulls out his gun and shoots three of them


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 23, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Pizza delivery driver ambushed by four males intent on robbing him — so he pulls out his gun and shoots three of them


Commies would prefer that this man die rather than use an evil gun to defend himself.

All commies must fucking die!

.


----------



## elongobardi (Jan 23, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> > The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country.   The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks.   Why can't we have access to those things?    What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?
> ...



You should rethink that.   I came back just to embarrass your dumb libtard ass.   Your Democrats were Humiliated today in the Senate.     Do they even want to show there face for more.    Say goodbye asshole.   2020 President Trump.     2020 the House goes back to the Republicans and the Senate takes more Republican seats.     You and your loser liberals are being embarrassed and it only gets worse from here.     Do you want us to buy your plane ticket to Russia, North Korea, Iran because those will be the only places that will except Democratic scum like you.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P@triot (Jan 28, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.

2019 Ended With Heroic Actions by Lawful Gun Owners


----------



## P@triot (Jan 28, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.

Pair of hooded crooks pull gun on store clerk. But when clerk fires his own gun at them, suspects suddenly decide they just can't stay.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 17, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.

Man kicks in back door of house, charges at homeowner — who has a gun and fires. It proves to be suspect's final home invasion.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 25, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms.

Man forces his way into family's home in middle of night. But Dad has a gun and shoots intruder four times — once in the head.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 19, 2020)

Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms...

Five crooks try robbing woman at gunpoint at ATM. But she also has a gun — and shoots 17-year-old in self-defense, cops say.


----------



## regent (Mar 19, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms...
> 
> Five crooks try robbing woman at gunpoint at ATM. But she also has a gun — and shoots 17-year-old in self-defense, cops say.


So it looks like we should thank the liberals for insisting on a Bill of Rights.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 19, 2020)

elongobardi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SuperDemocrat said:
> ...



My, my! Somebody needs a nap!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 20, 2020)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms...
> ...


-Today's- liberals would describe -those- liberals as right-wing extremists.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 20, 2020)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for the *right* to keep and bear arms...
> ...


And that is exactly why they say, "looks can be deceiving". Because ignorant, uneducated people such as yourself view things with _extreme_ bias and prejudice - causing you to see what isn't there and never was.

Small government, maximum liberty built this nation. Who shares that ideology? Conservatives. Who wants to eliminate the U.S. Constitution claiming it was created by _slave rapists_? Leftists.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 31, 2020)

Thank God for her *right* to keep and bear arms...









						'I don't want to shoot him, but I'm going to have to!': Woman on 911 call repeatedly warns burglar to leave her home before firing gun
					

The suspect allegedly tried breaking into other homes on the block




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2020)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Not really.
Gun control in the US historically was mostly supported by right wingers who wanted to allow gangs like the KKK to more easily intimidate immigrants, Blacks, labor organizers, etc.

Before the Clintons, it was Reagan who was the lead for gun control.  The Clintons and the assault weapons ban was the first time the left supported gun control.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 5, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> The Clintons and the assault weapons ban was the first time the left supported gun control.


Thank you for illustrating how the left continues to get more and more radicalized. It’s why so many are walking away.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 5, 2020)

Thank God for our *right* to keep and bear arms...









						FBI says skyrocketing demand for guns has broken record for background checks
					

The coronavirus has turned out millions of new gun owners




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Rigby5 (Apr 5, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > The Clintons and the assault weapons ban was the first time the left supported gun control.
> ...



I don't consider the Clintons as "more radicalized" as much as corporate sell outs.
For it is the wealthy elite who want gun control for when fossil fuels run out and the economic pie shrinks.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 5, 2020)

*"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"*

In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> *"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"*
> 
> In re Scalia's long and exhausting opinion in Heller.


Yeah?
So?


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > *"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"*
> ...



So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe".  Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?

Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


Let me dumb this down for you...
These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.
So...?


> Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background.


Clearly.   
Again:   So?


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I wrote:  _So whenever gun control is brought up, your final response is, "shall not infringe".  Was Scalia pro gun control, a liar or telling the truth that felons and the mentally ill should be denied the privilege of possessing arms?  

And, _

"Clearly, the only way to determine if someone is mentally ill or a felon, is to investigate their background."
[/QUOTE]

The 2nd A.:  * “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.”* NO WHERE IN THIS SENTENCE IS THE PHRASE, 
"These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd."

So, I'm not a dumbass, and my comment you use in your signature line is accurate, i.e. your personal attack on me:  "Let me dumb this down for you..." is your safe harbor.  Why not be honest for once in your life and admit that gun control can or cannot be an infringement, depending on circumstances.  

Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation.  Thus, Background Checks may not be sufficient but are necessary to determine who can possess a weapon/arm.

Try to spin your way out of that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


Yes.  I responded.


> NO WHERE IN THIS SENTENCE IS THE PHRASE,
> "These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
> Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd."


"...the right of _*the people*_ to keep and bear arms..."
Not everyone in the US qualifies as part of "the people", and thus, not everyone in the US has the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
This includes individuals who have had their right removed thru due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.


> So, I'm not a dumbass,





> Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation.  Thus, Background Checks may not be sufficient but are necessary to determine who can possess a weapon/arm.


_Non seq._
Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, there's no demonstrable necessity in a wholesale and plenary restraint on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, pending an investigation into who -might- be breaking the law.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an *investigation*.


An investigation is NOT due process.  

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

M14 Shooter said:


> "...the right of _*the people*_ to keep and bear arms..."
> Not everyone in the US qualifies as part of "the people", and thus, not everyone in the US has the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
> This includes individuals who have had their right removed thru due process.
> Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd.


Banning the possession and use of firearms requires DUE PROCESS, correct?

If so, every single federal and state gun law restricting "the people" from possession or access to firearms is unconstitutional on its face, without due process, right?

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an *investigation*.
> ...


Correct.
In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reaonable suspicion or probable cause.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > "...the right of _*the people*_ to keep and bear arms..."
> ...


Due process, in this regard, ended in _DC v Heller. _which overturned the ban in question.


> If so, every single federal and state gun law restricting "the people" from possession or access to firearms is unconstitutional on its face, without due process, right?


"Every single" is pretty broad.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


And, therefore, ANY law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, without due process, should be stricken, correct?

Laws that restrict a certain type of weapon reasonably tied to service in a militia (_Miller_), which is a military force requiring state-of-the-art weapons and equipment that the ordinary soldier would carry (like the M4 or M249, or more likely in the future, the SCAR-16/17) would be unlawful infringement without due process, correct?

Individuals who have not been adjudicated and had rights temporarily or permanently revoked should be UNRESTRICTED in possession of or access to proper military weapons (or as the commie gun grabbers call their restricted, semi-auto, non-military counterparts) "weapons of war."

.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an *investigation*.
> ...



Really?  Not according to Ballentines Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition

Rochin v. California, 342 US 165, 96 L. Ed. 183, 72 S Ct. 205, 25 ALR2d 1396


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> The 2nd A.: * “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.”* NO WHERE IN THIS SENTENCE IS THE PHRASE,
> "These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
> Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd."
> 
> ...


I want to address this a little more.  Tell me where you disagree.

1.  Any weapon or equipment reasonably related to service in a militia is protected by the 2nd Amendment (_See U.S. v. Miller_).  

2.  Such protection is applied to the States via the 14th Amendment .  (_See Heller; See also McDonald v. City of Chicago_)

3.  Any law (state, local, or federal) that preemptively restricts an individual's right to keep and bear arms that are reasonably related to service in a militia is facially unconstitutional.

Tell me what is wrong with any of these statements and why they are wrong (if any).

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


I prefer Black's Law Dictionary (I know Bryan Garner).

And, did you even bother to fucking read the _Rochin _case?

NOWHERE in the holding does the court state that an investigation is due process.  That case actually supports my position, if anything.  

He was *denied* due process when they made him barf up the morphine he swallowed.  

_"The conviction is reversed, because it was obtained by methods violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 166-174."_

.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd A.: * “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.”* NO WHERE IN THIS SENTENCE IS THE PHRASE,
> ...



1.  Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.

2.  The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).

3.  Due process:  If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> 1.  Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.


False.  
Of the things noted above, only a dishonorable discharge will result in the disability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.


> 2.  The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).


Your opinion doesn't matter.   The law says a felon, in accordance with the due process clause of the constitution, can lose constitutonally lose his right to keep and bear arms.  As he has no sugh right, said disability doe snot violate the 2nd.


> 3.  Due process:  If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.


You apparently have no idea what "due process" means.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.
> ...



I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.  I have seen due process argued plenty of times, something I suspect in which you have no experience.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



The point was there was an investigation.  Read and comprehend what my claim was, then consider this:

"one of the most famous and perhaps the most famous quoted definitions of "due process of law" is given by Daniel Webster in his argument in the Dartmouth College Case [Dartmouth College v. Woodworth (US) 4 Wheat518, 4 L Ed. 629] wherein he declared that by due process of law is meant, _"the law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry"_ (Investigation) "_and renders judgement only after trial"._​


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


Nope.  Didn't happen.

If you HAD,  you'd understand that In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause. 

You don't.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Is this your opinion, or is there a case which you neglected to offer.  I suspect your claim was copied from a blog by a lawyer for the NRA, or someone employed by the NRA, but not in any case before a Federal Court.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...



Tell us why  you think a police officer can, w/o  reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, constitutionally stop someone walking down the sidewalk , restrain them, and check to see if they have any outstanding warrants or other legal impairments.

Go ahead, Terry - I dare you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> 1. Members of our armed forces, incl. the Naval Reserves and the National Guard, have been determined to suffer from PTSD, and addled by alcohol or drugs, or discharged as an other than honorable would not be eligible to possess an Arm, per Heller.


That is nowhere in Heller.



Rye Catcher said:


> 2. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to felons, as can be seen by (some states) denial to vote; as to the mentally ill I'm not inclined to believe they would be denied equal protection under the law (notwithstanding civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others; are being civilly detained as a sexual offender, or one sent to a state prison (in CA) for an assessment of the defendants ability to comprehend right from wrong).


Those protections still apply.  They are only removed AFTER due process.



Rye Catcher said:


> 3. Due process: If anyone who seeks to buy a firearm (possess and Arm) who has made criminal threats, committed domestic violence/child abuse, or is on probation or parole with the standard term and condition to not own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.


Due process being required for all those determinations.

Still, why are people restricted who have never been deemed a danger to anyone?  Like me.   I have never even been arrested for ANYTHING.  I have never even tried an illegal narcotic.   ABSENT Due Process, I do not have the ability to obtain an M4 or M249, despite those weapons being PRECISELY those related to the preservation of and service in a militia (_See Miller_).


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.


You were a lawyer?  

Bullshit.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> The point was there was an investigation. Read and comprehend what my claim was, then consider this:
> 
> "one of the most famous and perhaps the most famous quoted definitions of "due process of law" is given by Daniel Webster in his argument in the Dartmouth College Case [Dartmouth College v. Woodworth (US) 4 Wheat518, 4 L Ed. 629] wherein he declared that by due process of law is meant, _"the law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry"_ (Investigation) "_and renders judgement only after trial"._


You seem to want to ignore this part that goes with the "inquiry" part.  

_"...and renders judgment only after trial."_ 

.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



"Reasonable suspicion" is a very subjective term, as is probable cause.   Both can and are argued in criminal matters too often.  These issue too come into play when one speaks to "due process". 

Who is "Terry"? I know I've told you time and again that if  something you post is directed to me, you use Mr. Catcher or Sir.  You really need to learn you place in society.

Once again you fail to respond to a simple question.  I must only infer that you made up you comment or read it in a blog.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.
> ...



Nope.  I did take LSAT and did take a few classes, but I had by then been employed in my first LE job as an Adult Probation Officer and learned I did not like criminal attorney's - justice came in last as both the defense and prosecution put winning first, with very little or no concern for defendants, victims or witnesses.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The point was there was an investigation. Read and comprehend what my claim was, then consider this:
> ...



No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm.  A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.

Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States.  They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.

The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A.  No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> justice came in last as both the defense and prosecution put winning first, with very little or no concern for defendants, victims or witnesses.


Yes.  That has been my experience as well, especially the prosecutors, despite their statutory duty:

_"It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done.  They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused."_

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - General Duties of Officers


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.


You see how that bypasses due process and takes away a right PRIOR TO due process, right?  That is ass backwards.



Rye Catcher said:


> Consider gravity and push button knives and Nun chucks; they are regulated or outlawed in a number of States. They are Arms, capable of deadly force and to my knowledge have never received the attention as do firearms.


But _Miller _puts that issue to rest while also shooting down bans on the M4 and M249.   (holding that a weapon must have a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia)



Rye Catcher said:


> The issues on gun control are moot, too many on your side of the argument claim gun control is equivalent to the first step in repealing the 2nd A. No bill has ever been put forth to do so, and IMO people who are sober, sane and law abiding have every right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a defensive weapon in their home or place of business (if their employer approves), along with Scalia's opinion in Heller.


Because such a bill would immediately be shot down (pun intended).  If you can't win outright, you must go at it in backdoor fashion, which you gun grabber have....REPEATEDLY.  You even made us fight you all the way to the SCOTUS over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, when you motherfuckers know good and goddamn well that it is.  You were just trying to backdoor it.  You know you were.  

This is why your ilk can never be trusted.  You don't give a cocksucking rat fuck about preserving OUR rights.   You want to take them away, by any means possible. 

Stop denying it.  It does nothing but make us even more suspicious of ANYTHING you try. 

.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > justice came in last as both the defense and prosecution put winning first, with very little or no concern for defendants, victims or witnesses.
> ...



In my experience, in probation and two other law enforcement assignments, both sides seek to win; clearly the prosecution seeks to win, but that side, along with pressure from LE officers, deputies and agents, over charge in too many cases; likewise, defense lawyers argue in the exact opposite direction, without the power.  Both believe they are seeking justice, but the application of charges can vary by the status* of the defendant.

*Social status, color, ethnicity, age, gender, attitude, education, etc. etc.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm. A legislature which passes such a law would set up standards, up to appeal of course (that is where due process comes in) if a person is denied what you believe is a right.
> ...



I'm not denying anything, your post here is what I meant by Moot; we will never agree on any aspect of gun control no matter how many victims end up in the morgue and how you view gun control.

You believe "shall not infringe" is sacrosanct, unless someone is either a felon or mentally ill.  Without vetting in a comprehensive background check, we will only know after the shooter kills innocent victims that he  is a felon and/or mentally ill.

In short you would put your right to own guns without *any* interference from the government before the right to live by a child who is at school, in church or attending a concert; before any clerk in any store,  or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when some kook is seeking suicide by cop.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


That's a bullshit argument. (eyeroll)

Freedom ain't safe and it never will be, but it's better than the alternative....... *always.*


----------



## Rye Catcher (Apr 6, 2020)

freyasman said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



Wrong, but I respect you right to express your opinion.  Without being too abstract, consider there are no atheists in a fox hole.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...



I was in court a bunch of years ago and the Judge made sure my due process was looked after.  What these idjits don't understand is, in our daily lives, due process is part of it from housing to whatever.  Otherwise, the landlords and Housing Authorities could kick you out without cause.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 6, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


What "foxhole" are you referring to, and how is that relevant anyway? 

Every time someone pulls out this weak-assed "_Let us take away your freedoms or all these little children will die....." _bullshit argument, it makes me want to throw up. That is just sad and sorry and IMO, you should be ashamed of yourself for that behavior.

It never ceases to amaze me how many little closet authoritarians are running around out there. (SMH)


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


As expected, you are ignorant of the relevant jurisprudence - even after I gave you a hint.









						Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
					

Terry v. Ohio: Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a...




					supreme.justia.com
				




Thus:
In the US, the exercise of a right may not be constitutionally restrained, pending the result of an investigation initiated w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause.; state-mandated background checks for the purchase of a firearm do exactly that.

Disagree?
Demonstrate that the state has probable cause or reasonable suspiction to believe any given person purchasing a firearm may not legally do so.



> I retired after 32 years as an officer of the court.


Nah, Terry - didn't happen.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> No, going back to background checks, the decision is made if someone does not meet the standards to be trusted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a weapon/Arm.


What resonable suspition or prbabble cause does the atate have to reatrain an individual in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 20, 2020)

This COVID-19 situation has shined the light on how quickly people can rush to a totalitarian state of existence out of fear, and the power brokers are all too happy to take what the fearful give them.

The *one factor* keeping these "quarantines" voluntary, which will also prevent extended, wholesale deprivation of individual liberty--- *armed citizens*. 

Government is force.  Force can only be controlled by opposing force.

Arm yourselves or become chattel. 


.


----------



## P@triot (May 19, 2020)

Thank God for their *right* to keep and bear arms...








						11 More Cases in Which Responsible Gun Owners Saved Lives
					

These instances of proper defensive gun use provide an important but often unreported counterbalance to the national conversation on the Second Amendment.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot (Nov 17, 2020)

A big thank you to idiot Democrats _everywhere_. Not only did your ignorant #DefundPolice campaign result in a massive Republican victory across the nation, it also has resulted in lower support for gun control!








						Support for Stricter US Gun Laws at Lowest Level Since 2016: Gallup
					

Americans' overall support for stricter gun law has fallen to its lowest level since 2016, according to a Gallup survey.




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## Ridgerunner (Nov 17, 2020)

P@triot said:


> A big thank you to idiot Democrats _everywhere_. Not only did your ignorant #DefundPolice campaign result in a massive Republican victory across the nation, it also has resulted in lower support for gun control!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 17, 2020)

P@triot said:


> A big thank you to idiot Democrats _everywhere_. Not only did your ignorant #DefundPolice campaign result in a massive Republican victory across the nation, it also has resulted in lower support for gun control!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  I saw that and had to laugh!!
Defund the police....?  Okey Dokey,we'll just take matters into our own hands.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 17, 2020)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I saw that and had to laugh!!  Defund the police....?  Okey Dokey,we'll just take matters into our own hands.


The left is so damn dumb, it’s just unreal. Their own policies result in the polar opposite of what they want to achieve.

They claim that wealthy people getting wealthier disgusts them, but they push so hard for “free college”. Which means blue-collar people making average wages will spend their entire life paying for the education of white-collar people making above average wages  

The left is just a _special_ kind of stupid.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 20, 2021)

Thank God for their *right* to Keep and Bear Arms...








						Violent Felon Who Was Released From Prison Three Days Earlier Attempts Home Invasion -- Armed Homeowner Sends Him To The Morgue
					

Miami, OK — One Oklahoma homeowner will not be facing charges after fatally shooting a man attempting to break into... View Article




					www.secondamendmentdaily.com


----------



## miketx (Jan 20, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for their *right* to Keep and Bear Arms...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The government is the prime collaborator behind why we have so much crime.


----------

