# Frivolous litigants crucified by court-Rachel Maddow melts down



## turtledude

Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers

its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense

Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus



I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . . 

It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.


----------



## ChrisL

Also, if a person brings up a phony charge against a person, then those people should have to do jail time if they accuse a person of a crime falsely.  That is really one of the most crappiest things you could do to someone, to ruin someone's reputation and possibly life with false accusations.  I'm thinking mostly of false rape accusations.  Not only do those "women" ruin some innocent man's (men's) life, but they also make people doubt REAL rape accusations.  Any woman who would bring false charges of rape against someone, is a complete and utter loser.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?



Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks. 

Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
Click to expand...


Okay, it's different if the product is defective.  I don't think gun manufacturers do background checks.  Those are the people who MAKE and/or assemble the weapons.  Besides, it's already been established that a background check would not have prevented this crime.


----------



## Stephanie

Yeah but but but. don't dare accuse her and that Nasty station she is on, Msnbc: as being Fringe and Extremist.

who want's to watch a liberal talking head screeching and melting down all the time. icky

that's why they (liberals) can't make it big on the radio, like say a Rush Limbaugh. they drive people to want to poke their ear drums out and ...


----------



## DarkFury

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
Click to expand...

*Pay your share of the bill and shut the hell up. You lost, deal with it.*


----------



## TheOldSchool

Wow $220,000.  This is why you never act on emotion without thinking rationally.

You know who should REALLY pay that fee, the attorney who convinced these parents they had a case.


----------



## DarkFury

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow $220,000.  This is why you never act on emotion without thinking rationally.
> 
> You know who should REALLY pay that fee, the attorney who convinced these parents they had a case.


*You have a point, a SMALL one. Pay the bill and move on. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
Click to expand...

 
*Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks*

I'm pretty sure the manufacturers aren't involved in background checks.


----------



## Stephanie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks*
> 
> I'm pretty sure the manufacturers aren't involved in background checks.
Click to expand...


wow, I can't believe they even said that...


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
Click to expand...


more idiocy.  the gun makers don't water down background checks

nor do the dealers.  Idiot

and yes honest americans ought to have access to the same weapons civilian cops have access to

and moron-=your rant has nothing to do with frivolous litigation


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, it's different if the product is defective.  I don't think gun manufacturers do background checks.  Those are the people who MAKE and/or assemble the weapons.  Besides, it's already been established that a background check would not have prevented this crime.
Click to expand...


He's a well know liar and Graboid.  He wants to ban honest Americans owning guns.,  he wants to make the world safe for child rapists, home invaders and other scum who are needing shooting by good citizens


----------



## turtledude

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks*
> 
> I'm pretty sure the manufacturers aren't involved in background checks.
Click to expand...

JoeB isn't exactly known for factual rigor when it comes to his emotobabbling about guns


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, it's different if the product is defective.  I don't think gun manufacturers do background checks.  Those are the people who MAKE and/or assemble the weapons.  Besides, it's already been established that a background check would not have prevented this crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a well know liar and Graboid.  He wants to ban honest Americans owning guns.,  he wants to make the world safe for child rapists, home invaders and other scum who are needing shooting by good citizens
Click to expand...


At least Joe is one of the few who will actually admit to it.  Not like the others and their so-called "reasonable measures."


----------



## gallantwarrior

Justice is done.  We need a judicial overhaul in this country where those who bring suit should cover the costs of the sued, should the plaintiff lose the suit.  Imagine how quickly this country would change.  Even better if the plaintiff's attorney be required to cover some of the cost.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Okay, it's different if the product is defective. I don't think gun manufacturers do background checks. Those are the people who MAKE and/or assemble the weapons. Besides, it's already been established that a background check would not have prevented this crime



One  phone call to Joker's university.   "Hey, we have one of your students here, and he wants to buy a AR-15 and a 100 round drum magazine. Oh yeah, and his hair is dyed orange and he keeps repeating Heath Ledger's lines from _The Dark Knight_."

Oh, wait.  That sentence by itself should have raised flags.

"But the Founding Slave Rapists wanted us to have guns! Freeeeeedom!!!!!"


----------



## strollingbones

i dye my hair different color and quote movies all the time......their too big too cuddle.....raising arizonia...
do you want to live forever....conan....chill honey bunny....pulp fiction the list just goes on and on...

you seem to be equating appearance with guilt or innocent but even worse

you are advocating some type of system where you are judged on potential crimes?


----------



## strollingbones

as my son just went thru background checks for a cc...it was rather time consuming but the mental evaluation seems to be the background check....i dared him to go in and go "i want to kill crazies" but alas he refused saying he had a bunch of cash in this already....

how does one water down a background check?

you do realize they are simply checking police records


----------



## strollingbones

dont confuse a background check with a background investigation


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, it's different if the product is defective. I don't think gun manufacturers do background checks. Those are the people who MAKE and/or assemble the weapons. Besides, it's already been established that a background check would not have prevented this crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One  phone call to Joker's university.   "Hey, we have one of your students here, and he wants to buy a AR-15 and a 100 round drum magazine. Oh yeah, and his hair is dyed orange and he keeps repeating Heath Ledger's lines from _The Dark Knight_."
> 
> Oh, wait.  That sentence by itself should have raised flags.
> 
> "But the Founding Slave Rapists wanted us to have guns! Freeeeeedom!!!!!"
Click to expand...

What is the line?  Oh yeah, that's right.  If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.

And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks
> 
> nor do the dealers. Idiot



Of course thy have.  The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars.  (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> What is the line? Oh yeah, that's right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.
> 
> And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard



Actually, what I had in my condo complex was a neighbor who shot out into the parking lot in a suicide attempt before doing it right a few weeks later.

If the cops had taken his gun then, he might still be alive today.


----------



## JoeB131

strollingbones said:


> dont confuse a background check with a background investigation



But why aren't we doing background investigations?

The Media was able to find out Joker Holmes was batshit crazy within a day of the shooting.  The same with Loughner, or Cho, or Lanza.  

It wasn't like their insanity was a secret.  IN Holmes case, his university was in the process of expelling him for his mental issues. 

Now, finding it hard to believe any of these guys were brilliant at hiding their issues. But it really should be on the gun industry to make sure these guys can't get guns.

After Timothy McVeigh did his thing, the manufacturers of fertilizers put in a whole series of checks to monitor who was buying their product and reporting anything suspicious to the government.  After 9-11, we did a whole lot of things to make the airports more secure. 

But guns? Meh, let's slap the grieving parents of someone killed by a madman who was able to buy a gun with a quarter million dollar penalty for wanting their day in court.


----------



## strollingbones

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the line? Oh yeah, that's right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.
> 
> And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I had in my condo complex was a neighbor who shot out into the parking lot in a suicide attempt before doing it right a few weeks later.
> 
> If the cops had taken his gun then, he might still be alive today.
Click to expand...


if frogs had wings they wouldnt bump their asses.....
what is that sound....
o frogs bumping thier asses


----------



## JoeB131

strollingbones said:


> if frogs had wings they wouldnt bump their asses.....
> what is that sound....
> o frogs bumping thier asses



Not really a good comparison. 

This guy shot out his patio door window, and when the police responded, he lied to them and tried to claim someone shot in at him.

(Which was immediately proven a lie by the fact the glass was scattered OUTSIDE.)

Now, he had endangered his neighbors by firing a gun in a residential area, and he lied to the police.  Two good reasons for the cops to take his gun.  They didn't.  He shot himself three weeks later.

Why didn't the cops take his gun?  Probably because the NRA has police departments so scared of litigation they can't protect citizens.  Instead they buy bigger guns, military surplus vehicles and we wonder why we don't feel all that safe.


----------



## strollingbones

hindsight is 20/20 and a person wanting to kill them selves will find a way....of the suicides i have known.....1 used a shotgun...1 used pills...1 used a car and then there are the questionable ones....accident or not....there are so many ways to kill oneself


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the line? Oh yeah, that's right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.
> 
> And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I had in my condo complex was a neighbor who shot out into the parking lot in a suicide attempt before doing it right a few weeks later.
> 
> If the cops had taken his gun then, he might still be alive today.
Click to expand...

Are there no laws against discharging a firearm in a residential area in your neighborhood?  If there are and he violated them, it's a matter of the authorities not enforcing existing law.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> if frogs had wings they wouldnt bump their asses.....
> what is that sound....
> o frogs bumping thier asses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really a good comparison.
> 
> This guy shot out his patio door window, and when the police responded, he lied to them and tried to claim someone shot in at him.
> 
> (Which was immediately proven a lie by the fact the glass was scattered OUTSIDE.)
> 
> Now, he had endangered his neighbors by firing a gun in a residential area, and he lied to the police.  Two good reasons for the cops to take his gun.  They didn't.  He shot himself three weeks later.
> 
> Why didn't the cops take his gun?  Probably because the NRA has police departments so scared of litigation they can't protect citizens.  Instead they buy bigger guns, military surplus vehicles and we wonder why we don't feel all that safe.
Click to expand...

Why don't you find out instead of speculating?


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the line? Oh yeah, that's right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.
> 
> And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I had in my condo complex was a neighbor who shot out into the parking lot in a suicide attempt before doing it right a few weeks later.
> 
> If the cops had taken his gun then, he might still be alive today.
Click to expand...






No, he would have got in his car and possibly killed someone else along with him.  That's the deal with suicide, there are those who are going to succeed.  The problem is when they take someone else with them.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Why don't you find out instead of speculating?



My town is urn by Republican assholes.  the same kind that cheer when grieving parents have to pay money to the gun manufacturer that killed their daughter.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you find out instead of speculating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My town is urn by Republican assholes.  the same kind that cheer when grieving parents have to pay money to the gun manufacturer that killed their daughter.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you won't bother to find out, but will continue speculating?


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Does that mean you won't bother to find out, but will continue speculating?



I'm sure the Podunk PD was putting that fine casework on their weekly newsletter.

They messed up.  They should have taken the guy's gun.  That day. 

But, um, er... Founding Fathers.  Or something.


----------



## eots

turtledude said:


> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus


god I hate that man


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean you won't bother to find out, but will continue speculating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Podunk PD was putting that fine casework on their weekly newsletter.
> 
> They messed up.  They should have taken the guy's gun.  That day.
> 
> But, um, er... Founding Fathers.  Or something.
Click to expand...

You're doing an awful lot of speculating and getting nowhere.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks
> 
> nor do the dealers. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thy have.  The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars.  (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that *immunized gun sellers from liability*.
Click to expand...


Gun sellers?  You are full of it.  Why do you lie?  If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that *immunized gun sellers from liability*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun sellers?  You are full of it.  Why do you lie?  If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.
Click to expand...


So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?

Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post

Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.


----------



## prison/con.net

why should the makers of a legitimate product be sued for the wrongful use of that product, hmmm?   By that "logic' car makers should be liable for anyone who uses a car to kidnap, steal, kill, rape, etc, or to escape from justice.   The entire concept of suing gunmakers was just a backdoor attempt at taking guns from legitimate owners, and we beat you at it. Just as we'll always beat you, cause we outnumber you, we're more passionate than you, we're smarter than you, we've got logic, reason and right on our side. Plus we've got all the guns, silencers, explosives and ability and willingness to use them.


----------



## prison/con.net

We have every right to possess the means to effectively resist tyrants and their thugs. Bolt actions or shotguns don't suffice for that job. You need a takedown concealable military type autoloading rifle, with a silencer, so that you have no muzzleflash at night and so that Big Bro's thugs have trouble bringing accurate fire to bear on  you.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Interesting thought: I'm watching "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the opening scene brings home the fact that people will find a way to kill, regardless of what tools are available to do so.  The pre-humans are struggling to survive, until one figures out that he can kill prey using a large bone.  The next thing, a member of a competing tribe falls victim to the bone-as-club.  Take away firearms and the thugs will just use something else.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that *immunized gun sellers from liability*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun sellers?  You are full of it.  Why do you lie?  If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?
> 
> Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post
> 
> Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.
Click to expand...


You said the gun SELLER.


----------



## turtledude

eots said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> god I hate that man
Click to expand...

 still jealous over the fact that he's better hung than you are


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks
> 
> nor do the dealers. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thy have.  The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars.  (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.
Click to expand...

and rightfully so.  unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable.  I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability.  people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the line? Oh yeah, that's right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.
> 
> And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I had in my condo complex was a neighbor who shot out into the parking lot in a suicide attempt before doing it right a few weeks later.
> 
> If the cops had taken his gun then, he might still be alive today.
Click to expand...


if they had taken his building away he could have been prevented from jumping

his kitchen knife away-no slitting his wrists

his clothesline away-no hanging


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that *immunized gun sellers from liability*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun sellers?  You are full of it.  Why do you lie?  If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?
> 
> Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post
> 
> Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.
Click to expand...

Katrina von Communist-the foxy fabian who should be obscene and not heard.  The people who brought that suit should have been bankrupted for filing a bogus suit.  their claim was that the AR-15 has no legitimate purpose. that alone is a bald faced lie that should have subjected the lawyers to "rule 11" sanctions


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks
> 
> nor do the dealers. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thy have.  The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars.  (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and rightfully so.  unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable.  I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability.  people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit
Click to expand...


Immunized the gun sellers, TD?  Or is it the manufacturers?


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks
> 
> nor do the dealers. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thy have.  The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars.  (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and rightfully so.  unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable.  I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability.  people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immunized the gun sellers, TD?  Or is it the manufacturers?
Click to expand...

 it prevents suing a maker or seller of a weapon if the weapon was not defective and no laws were broken.  Liberal cocksuckers in office-chagrined over not being able to ban guns decided to file multiple suits against makers and seller in the hope that such lawsuits would bankrupt the businesses.  The theory normally is

1) the guns they make or sell have no legitimate purpose-of course assholes like JoeB do not think anyone should be able to own a gun for ANY reason

2) that the makers/sellers KNOW that some of the guns will be used illegally.  Can you imagine that logic being applied to the makers of cars, booze or SUDAPHED?

3) that these weapons are a "nuisance" and no one should own them


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks
> 
> nor do the dealers. Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thy have.  The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars.  (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and rightfully so.  unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable.  I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability.  people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immunized the gun sellers, TD?  Or is it the manufacturers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it prevents suing a maker or seller of a weapon if the weapon was not defective and no laws were broken.  Liberal cocksuckers in office-chagrined over not being able to ban guns decided to file multiple suits against makers and seller in the hope that such lawsuits would bankrupt the businesses.  The theory normally is
> 
> 1) the guns they make or sell have no legitimate purpose-of course assholes like JoeB do not think anyone should be able to own a gun for ANY reason
> 
> 2) that the makers/sellers KNOW that some of the guns will be used illegally.  Can you imagine that logic being applied to the makers of cars, booze or SUDAPHED?
> 
> 3) that these weapons are a "nuisance" and no one should own them
Click to expand...


Okay, thanks.  I thought that lawsuits COULD be brought against a seller and that those rules only applied to the manufacturer.  I think it is a good law.  If the law wasn't broken and procedure was followed, I don't see how a person or people could sue either the manufacturer or the seller for selling a legal weapon to a person.  Other than the usual procedures, there is no way to tell what a person will do with a weapon and no way to prevent a person from doing something illegal with the weapon unless you are a mind reader or something.


----------



## JoeB131

prison/con.net said:


> why should the makers of a legitimate product be sued for the wrongful use of that product, hmmm?   By that "logic' car makers should be liable for anyone who uses a car to kidnap, steal, kill, rape, etc, or to escape from justice.   The entire concept of suing gunmakers was just a backdoor attempt at taking guns from legitimate owners, and we beat you at it. Just as we'll always beat you, cause we outnumber you, we're more passionate than you, we're smarter than you, we've got logic, reason and right on our side. Plus we've got all the guns, silencers, explosives and ability and willingness to use them.



The best argument for gun control is to let the Gun nuts fantasize about ALL the people they want to murder.

Actually, there is a precedent for the gun lawsuits, and that was the tobacco settlement.  When it was found the tobacco companies were marketing to children and hid the dangers of their product, people were able to sue them for damages.

The same should be done to the gun industry.  If they are marketing to the James Holmes of the world, they should be held accounatable.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Okay, thanks. I thought that lawsuits COULD be brought against a seller and that those rules only applied to the manufacturer. I think it is a good law. If the law wasn't broken and procedure was followed, I don't see how a person or people could sue either the manufacturer or the seller for selling a legal weapon to a person. Other than the usual procedures, there is no way to tell what a person will do with a weapon and no way to prevent a person from doing something illegal with the weapon unless you are a mind reader or something.



Okay, the guy was dressed as the FUCKING JOKER and wanted an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine.  What did you think he intended to do with it?

You hold the manufacturers responsible, and guess what, they are going to make sure guns don't get in the hands of the wrong people.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> it prevents suing a maker or seller of a weapon if the weapon was not defective and no laws were broken. Liberal cocksuckers in office-chagrined over not being able to ban guns decided to file multiple suits against makers and seller in the hope that such lawsuits would bankrupt the businesses. The theory normally is
> 
> 1) the guns they make or sell have no legitimate purpose-of course assholes like JoeB do not think anyone should be able to own a gun for ANY reason
> 
> 2) that the makers/sellers KNOW that some of the guns will be used illegally. Can you imagine that logic being applied to the makers of cars, booze or SUDAPHED?
> 
> 3) that these weapons are a "nuisance" and no one should own them



Uh, guy, we already apply this kind of logic to Sudaphed. If you go into a store and try to buy enough Sudaphed to re-enact the Second Season of Breaking Bad, the store is supposed to stop you and report you.

As for cars, cars are already licensed, registered, regulated, and required to be insured.  If we held gun owners to the same standards we hold car owners, I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem.

32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes are more than a nuisance.  It's more like a crisis.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that *immunized gun sellers from liability*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun sellers?  You are full of it.  Why do you lie?  If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?
> 
> Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post
> 
> Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the gun SELLER.
Click to expand...


Go back and ready the article.  Then have someone help you with the big words, stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Katrina von Communist-the foxy fabian who should be obscene and not heard. The people who brought that suit should have been bankrupted for filing a bogus suit. their claim was that the AR-15 has no legitimate purpose. that alone is a bald faced lie that should have subjected the lawyers to "rule 11" sanctions



Yes, totally bankrupt greiving parents for asking a sensible question like,

"Why was the crazy fucker who thought he was the Joker allowed to buy a military grade weapon?"

You guys might have to be worried that now people see what these laws are like... and question them.  Even Chris the gun nut didn't know there was a liability protection for gun makers and sellers.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> if they had taken his building away he could have been prevented from jumping
> 
> his kitchen knife away-no slitting his wrists
> 
> his clothesline away-no hanging



Any one of those things, there's a reasonable chance to stop him  or save him after the attempt.  Guns, not so much.

Not to mention his first attempt sent a bullet flying across a parking lot that hundreds of people use.


----------



## BlackSand

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
Click to expand...


Product manufacturers can generally be held liable for product failure or fault ... But not consumer misuse (except in progressive hellholes where everything is upside down).
The gun manufacturers do not write legislation ... So if you don't like the legislation, take it up with your representatives in Congress.

.


----------



## JoeB131

BlackSand said:


> Product manufacturers can generally be held liable for product failure or fault ... But not consumer misuse (except in progressive hellholes where everything is upside down).
> The gun manufacturers do not write legislation ... So if you don't like the legislation, take it up with your representatives in Congress.



If you are so fucking delusional that you don't think special interests are writing our laws,  just don't think there is anything I can do for you, other than recommend that the people you live with secure all sharp objects.

Product manufacturers CAN be held responsible for unethical business practices and reckless marketing strategies.  Again, I go back to the tobacco industry, which did things like marketing to children with cartoon characters.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that *immunized gun sellers from liability*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun sellers?  You are full of it.  Why do you lie?  If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?
> 
> Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post
> 
> Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the gun SELLER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and ready the article.  Then have someone help you with the big words, stupid.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should learn to spell before you call anyone else "stupid."  Also, you specifically said the gun "seller" and not "manufacturer."  The two terms are NOT interchangeable.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katrina von Communist-the foxy fabian who should be obscene and not heard. The people who brought that suit should have been bankrupted for filing a bogus suit. their claim was that the AR-15 has no legitimate purpose. that alone is a bald faced lie that should have subjected the lawyers to "rule 11" sanctions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, totally bankrupt greiving parents for asking a sensible question like,
> 
> "Why was the crazy fucker who thought he was the Joker allowed to buy a military grade weapon?"
> 
> You guys might have to be worried that now people see what these laws are like... and question them.  Even Chris the gun nut didn't know there was a liability protection for gun makers and sellers.
Click to expand...


Gun nut?  Thanks again for proving your idiocy.  I am a "rights nut."  ALL of our rights deserve protection from assholes like you.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Maybe you should learn to spell before you call anyone else "stupid." Also, you specifically said the gun "seller" and not "manufacturer." The two terms are NOT interchangeable.



The law as written covers both, Stupid. If you bothered to do any research, you'd know this.  But again, you are a stupid person.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Gun nut? Thanks again for proving your idiocy. I am a "rights nut." ALL of our rights deserve protection from assholes like you.



Stupid, there are no "rights. There are privileges the rest of society thinks you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

Now, the question is, should you be allowed the privilege of owning a military grade weapon?  Well, no.  Not in most cases.  you certainly don't need one to protect your home in the unlikely event of a crime.  Even ignoring the reality a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  A regular gun is perfectly adequate for you to kill your housemate in that argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best. 

There is simply no good reason for a guy like Joker Holmes to be able to buy a military grade weapon and a 100 round clip.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun nut? Thanks again for proving your idiocy. I am a "rights nut." ALL of our rights deserve protection from assholes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, there are no "rights. There are privileges the rest of society thinks you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> 
> Now, the question is, should you be allowed the privilege of owning a military grade weapon?  Well, no.  Not in most cases.  you certainly don't need one to protect your home in the unlikely event of a crime.  Even ignoring the reality a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  A regular gun is perfectly adequate for you to kill your housemate in that argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.
> 
> There is simply no good reason for a guy like Joker Holmes to be able to buy a military grade weapon and a 100 round clip.
Click to expand...


Oh, there are no rights?  Again, you show just how ignorant you really are.  Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?  

Thankfully it is not up to a dumbass like you to determine anything for somebody else.  That is a personal decision that has nothing to do with you because we have individual freedom in THIS country.  If you don't like our rights and our freedoms, maybe you'd be happier living somewhere else.  Believe me, NOBODY would miss your smelly arse.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the line? Oh yeah, that's right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.
> 
> And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I had in my condo complex was a neighbor who shot out into the parking lot in a suicide attempt before doing it right a few weeks later.
> 
> If the cops had taken his gun then, he might still be alive today.
Click to expand...


So what?  According to you, he was a dumbass, so good riddance, right?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> There is simply no good reason for a guy like Joker Holmes to be able to buy a military grade weapon and a 100 round clip.



A guy like him, huh?  How would anyone KNOW what kind of guy he was?  What if he went and bought rat poison from the hardware store or something?  Then killed someone or multiple people?  What other things would you like to BAN, you traitorous bitch?


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun nut? Thanks again for proving your idiocy. I am a "rights nut." ALL of our rights deserve protection from assholes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, there are no "rights. There are privileges the rest of society thinks you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> 
> Now, the question is, should you be allowed the privilege of owning a military grade weapon?  Well, no.  Not in most cases.  you certainly don't need one to protect your home in the unlikely event of a crime.  Even ignoring the reality a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  A regular gun is perfectly adequate for you to kill your housemate in that argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.
> 
> There is simply no good reason for a guy like Joker Holmes to be able to buy a military grade weapon and a 100 round clip.
Click to expand...

I see the lobotomy reversal procedure failed.  The internment of Japanese Americans during war was considered (at the time) to be constitutional, however erroneous the reasons were, try that today and see what happens...........  It has nothing to do with US citizens having only "privileges" and not rights.  You seem to be under the delusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the government telling us what rights we have not the actual fact that those documents tell the government what it can and cannot do where those "natural" rights are concerned.  
As for your "opinion" on military grade weapons........  SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you as do most Americans.  Oh well.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Oh, there are no rights? Again, you show just how ignorant you really are. Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?



Sure I have. And it has nothing to do with the point I made, which you were clearly too stupid to understand.

Okay, let's try this again. Japanese Americans, 1942. They committed no crimes. They were rounded up, incarcerated, their property was taken,  the courts ignored their pleas even though what was done to them was a clear violation of their "rights". At the time, people didn't care.  The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor.  Of course, we need to lock them up!




ChrisL said:


> Thankfully it is not up to a dumbass like you to determine anything for somebody else. That is a personal decision that has nothing to do with you because we have individual freedom in THIS country. If you don't like our rights and our freedoms, maybe you'd be happier living somewhere else. Believe me, NOBODY would miss your smelly arse.



Stupid, 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes make it my business.



ChrisL said:


> A guy like him, huh? How would anyone KNOW what kind of guy he was? What if he went and bought rat poison from the hardware store or something? Then killed someone or multiple people? What other things would you like to BAN, you traitorous bitch?



Uh, within hours of the shooting, everyone who knew Holmes said they knew the guy was crazy.  the same for Cho, or Loughner, or Lanza, or pretty much every other nut who went on a shooting spree. Shit, Holmes own mother broke bad  on him. 

And, no, he simply would not have been able to do the kind of damage he did with that AR-15 with a box of rat poison.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, there are no rights? Again, you show just how ignorant you really are. Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I have. And it has nothing to do with the point I made, which you were clearly too stupid to understand.
> 
> Okay, let's try this again. Japanese Americans, 1942. They committed no crimes. They were rounded up, incarcerated, their property was taken,  the courts ignored their pleas even though what was done to them was a clear violation of their "rights". At the time, people didn't care.  The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor.  Of course, we need to lock them up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully it is not up to a dumbass like you to determine anything for somebody else. That is a personal decision that has nothing to do with you because we have individual freedom in THIS country. If you don't like our rights and our freedoms, maybe you'd be happier living somewhere else. Believe me, NOBODY would miss your smelly arse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid, 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes make it my business.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A guy like him, huh? How would anyone KNOW what kind of guy he was? What if he went and bought rat poison from the hardware store or something? Then killed someone or multiple people? What other things would you like to BAN, you traitorous bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, within hours of the shooting, everyone who knew Holmes said they knew the guy was crazy.  the same for Cho, or Loughner, or Lanza, or pretty much every other nut who went on a shooting spree. Shit, Holmes own mother broke bad  on him.
> 
> And, no, he simply would not have been able to do the kind of damage he did with that AR-15 with a box of rat poison.
Click to expand...


You have YET to make any kind of valid point whatsoever.  Just a bunch of paranoid blathering is all we can get out of you.  Like you've been told before, there are at least TWICE as many DGU than crimes committed with guns.  How many more times do you need to be given the information before it sinks into your thick retard skull?

Oh?  Within HOURS after the crime?  You see?  Do you see how retarded you really are?  You dumb arse, there is no way (if said person has on CRIMINAL RECORD) that anyone would know they are going to shoot someone.  

Not only that, but your constant references to "mass shootings" are meaningless since they make up LESS THAN 1% of all homicides.  

Why are you not complaining about black on black gang violence which is, by FAR, a bigger problem.  Why?  Because you are a dumb fool, that's why.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> I see the lobotomy reversal procedure failed. The internment of Japanese Americans during war was considered (at the time) to be constitutional, however erroneous the reasons were, try that today and see what happens........... It has nothing to do with US citizens having only "privileges" and not rights. You seem to be under the delusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the government telling us what rights we have not the actual fact that those documents tell the government what it can and cannot do where those "natural" rights are concerned.



Actually, we are doing the same kinds of things today, to Muslims.  We haven't learned a fucking thing.

No, the thing is, that I tired to get across StupidL was that a majority decided the Japanese had no "rights", not the "government", which is really us.



Ringel05 said:


> As for your "opinion" on military grade weapons........ SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you as do most Americans. Oh well.



Again, Heller is a 5-4 decision based on fanciful reasoning.  Scalia takes a dirt nap, and "militias" get "Well-regulated" and we'll all be better off for it.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the lobotomy reversal procedure failed. The internment of Japanese Americans during war was considered (at the time) to be constitutional, however erroneous the reasons were, try that today and see what happens........... It has nothing to do with US citizens having only "privileges" and not rights. You seem to be under the delusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the government telling us what rights we have not the actual fact that those documents tell the government what it can and cannot do where those "natural" rights are concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are doing the same kinds of things today, to Muslims.  We haven't learned a fucking thing.
> 
> No, the thing is, that I tired to get across StupidL was that a majority decided the Japanese had no "rights", not the "government", which is really us.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your "opinion" on military grade weapons........ SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you as do most Americans. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Heller is a 5-4 decision based on fanciful reasoning.  Scalia takes a dirt nap, and "militias" get "Well-regulated" and we'll all be better off for it.
Click to expand...


Oh really?  Why don't you post a link proving your statement about Muslims.  Again, you prove what a moron you really are.  I think you are overdue for a "dirt nap."


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the lobotomy reversal procedure failed. The internment of Japanese Americans during war was considered (at the time) to be constitutional, however erroneous the reasons were, try that today and see what happens........... It has nothing to do with US citizens having only "privileges" and not rights. You seem to be under the delusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the government telling us what rights we have not the actual fact that those documents tell the government what it can and cannot do where those "natural" rights are concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are doing the same kinds of things today, to Muslims.  We haven't learned a fucking thing.
> 
> No, the thing is, that I tired to get across StupidL was that a majority decided the Japanese had no "rights", not the "government", which is really us.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your "opinion" on military grade weapons........ SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you as do most Americans. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Heller is a 5-4 decision based on fanciful reasoning.  Scalia takes a dirt nap, and "militias" get "Well-regulated" and we'll all be better off for it.
Click to expand...


So, you think the founders (when writing the 2nd amendment) had the idea that they WANTED the government to limit a right.  You do REALIZE that the BOR outlines the people's rights and that the government has NO rights as an entity.   Oh wait, you probably didn't know that because you are a dumb arse.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the lobotomy reversal procedure failed. The internment of Japanese Americans during war was considered (at the time) to be constitutional, however erroneous the reasons were, try that today and see what happens........... It has nothing to do with US citizens having only "privileges" and not rights. You seem to be under the delusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the government telling us what rights we have not the actual fact that those documents tell the government what it can and cannot do where those "natural" rights are concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are doing the same kinds of things today, to Muslims.  We haven't learned a fucking thing.
> 
> No, the thing is, that I tired to get across StupidL was that a majority decided the Japanese had no "rights", not the "government", which is really us.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your "opinion" on military grade weapons........ SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you as do most Americans. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Heller is a 5-4 decision based on fanciful reasoning.  Scalia takes a dirt nap, and "militias" get "Well-regulated" and we'll all be better off for it.
Click to expand...


You unworthy sniveling little POS.  That is all you are.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the lobotomy reversal procedure failed. The internment of Japanese Americans during war was considered (at the time) to be constitutional, however erroneous the reasons were, try that today and see what happens........... It has nothing to do with US citizens having only "privileges" and not rights. You seem to be under the delusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the government telling us what rights we have not the actual fact that those documents tell the government what it can and cannot do where those "natural" rights are concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are doing the same kinds of things today, to Muslims.  We haven't learned a fucking thing.
> 
> No, the thing is, that I tired to get across StupidL was that a majority decided the Japanese had no "rights", not the "government", which is really us.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your "opinion" on military grade weapons........ SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you as do most Americans. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Heller is a 5-4 decision based on fanciful reasoning.  Scalia takes a dirt nap, and "militias" get "Well-regulated" and we'll all be better off for it.
Click to expand...

We are doing the same things to Muslims??!!  Wonder where the internment camps are.........  oh yeah war combatants held in Gitmo.......  That's your evidence....... 

Again, no one really gives a rats ass about your "opinion" on SCOTUS and history (prior to the 1900s) shows the decision was anything but fanciful, it shows it was a return to original intent, not your modern interpretation.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> You have YET to make any kind of valid point whatsoever. Just a bunch of paranoid blathering is all we can get out of you. Like you've been told before, there are at least TWICE as many DGU than crimes committed with guns. How many more times do you need to be given the information before it sinks into your thick retard skull?



Actually, DGU's are a fantasy.   The FBI says there aren't more than 65,000 legit DGU's a year, and only 200 justified homicides with guns. compared to 32,000 gun deaths, and 300,000 gun crimes, it isn't worth it.



ChrisL said:


> Oh? Within HOURS after the crime? You see? Do you see how retarded you really are? You dumb arse, there is no way (if said person has on CRIMINAL RECORD) that anyone would know they are going to shoot someone.



Oh, besides the fact that criminal records really don't stop crooks from getting  guns  DUE TO Gun show and private eller loopholes, the point is, everyone in this man's life knew he was crazy. His school was in the process of expelling him.



ChrisL said:


> Not only that, but your constant references to "mass shootings" are meaningless since they make up LESS THAN 1% of all homicides.
> 
> Why are you not complaining about black on black gang violence which is, by FAR, a bigger problem. Why? Because you are a dumb fool, that's why.



No, you deal with the obvious problems, first.  While domestic violence is a problem, a mass shooting incident is more likely to affect my life. And the problem is pretty fixable.

1) real background checks
2) limits to the power of weapons available
3) Hold the gun industry accountable.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> We are doing the same things to Muslims??!! Wonder where the internment camps are......... oh yeah war combatants held in Gitmo....... That's your evidence.......
> 
> Again, no one really gives a rats ass about your "opinion" on SCOTUS and history (prior to the 1900s) shows the decision was anything but fanciful, it shows it was a return to original intent, not your modern interpretation.



You think  what we are doing at Gitmo is a good thing? Are you fucking retarded? Hey, I'm sure the torture and lack of habeus corpus is going to look really good in the history books.

Actually, the modern interprestation is Heller.  Even in the 19th century, they had gun control.  Which is why 5 homicides a year in Dodge City or Tombstone was a record.  the Sheriff would collect the guns before anyone came into town.


----------



## Sidekick

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katrina von Communist-the foxy fabian who should be obscene and not heard. The people who brought that suit should have been bankrupted for filing a bogus suit. their claim was that the AR-15 has no legitimate purpose. that alone is a bald faced lie that should have subjected the lawyers to "rule 11" sanctions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, totally bankrupt greiving parents for asking a sensible question like,
> 
> "Why was the crazy fucker who thought he was the Joker allowed to buy a military grade weapon?"
> 
> You guys might have to be worried that now people see what these laws are like... and question them.  Even Chris the gun nut didn't know there was a liability protection for gun makers and sellers.
Click to expand...


That's not a sensible question. Looking to find fault, following up a chain to find a weak link, why not just blame the Pope or the Dalai Lama for not praying hard enough, or better yet, why not blame the Colorado Rockies for not hitting enough home runs to distract people from going to the movies so they never see  Batman or get any ideas they're the Joker in real life to begin with. Could always just chalk it up to global warming and/or climate change, if only there were no cars in the world the shooter would never have made it to the scene of the crime. You maybe  need a degree in Chaos Theory to sort this one out.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are doing the same things to Muslims??!! Wonder where the internment camps are......... oh yeah war combatants held in Gitmo....... That's your evidence.......
> 
> Again, no one really gives a rats ass about your "opinion" on SCOTUS and history (prior to the 1900s) shows the decision was anything but fanciful, it shows it was a return to original intent, not your modern interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think  what we are doing at Gitmo is a good thing? Are you fucking retarded? Hey, I'm sure the torture and lack of habeus corpus is going to look really good in the history books.
> 
> Actually, the modern interprestation is Heller.  Even in the 19th century, they had gun control.  Which is why 5 homicides a year in Dodge City or Tombstone was a record.  the Sheriff would collect the guns before anyone came into town.
Click to expand...

Uuummmm, where did you get the idea I said Gitmo was a good thing?  Oh yeah, your deluded thinking won't let you see past your own nose.  Got it.  
As for the so called evidence you presented (Dodge City and Tombstone) that was local control, not federal, remember we're talking Federal and the Constitution so your misapplied definition of modern falls woefully short, not to mention the law in those town came around long after the founding fathers were dead and buried, oops.  Try reading what constituted "militia" to the founding fathers, try reading (first colonial) then state laws in the late 1700s, early 1800s requiring all males of age to own because they were part of the militia.  History is your friend, try learning it in it's entirety, not just those aspects you can skew to suit your world view. 
Again your misapplied "logic" is nothing more than opinion, an opinion that is patently obviously in the minority of some who live in fear.  Maybe we should create a Nerf world in a bubble for ya surrounded by government officials who control your every breathing moment where you can feel safe and sound.


----------



## JoeB131

Sidekick said:


> That's not a sensible question. Looking to find fault, following up a chain to find a weak link, why not just blame the Pope or the Dalai Lama for not praying hard enough, or better yet, why not blame the Colorado Rockies for not hitting enough home runs to distract people from going to the movies so they never see Batman or get any ideas they're the Joker in real life to begin with. Could always just chalk it up to global warming and/or climate change, if only there were no cars in the world the shooter would never have made it to the scene of the crime. You maybe need a degree in Chaos Theory to sort this one out



No, actually, I really don't.  In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Uuummmm, where did you get the idea I said Gitmo was a good thing?  Oh yeah, your deluded thinking won't let you see past your own nose.  Got it.



The part where you implied they weren't as bad as WWII interment camps and called the people in them "enemy combantants".  




Ringel05 said:


> As for the so called evidence you presented (Dodge City and Tombstone) that was local control, not federal, remember we're talking Federal and the Constitution so your misapplied definition of modern falls woefully short, not to mention the law in those town came around long after the founding fathers were dead and buried, oops.



But that was the point. Heller invalidated LOCAL ordinances. Ones the people of DC and Chicago voted on.





Ringel05 said:


> Try reading what constituted "militia" to the founding fathers, try reading (first colonial) then state laws in the late 1700s, early 1800s requiring all males of age to own because they were part of the militia.  History is your friend, try learning it in it's entirety, not just those aspects you can skew to suit your world view.
> Again your misapplied "logic" is nothing more than opinion, an opinion that is patently obviously in the minority of some who live in fear.  Maybe we should create a Nerf world in a bubble for ya surrounded by government officials who control your every breathing moment where you can feel safe and sound.




Okay, so your bizarre interpretation of history aside, on what planet does Joker Holmes constitute a well regulated militia?

Because, really, we need laws that reflect the here and now, not what some slave rapist thought 200 years ago.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont confuse a background check with a background investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why aren't we doing background investigations?
> 
> The Media was able to find out Joker Holmes was batshit crazy within a day of the shooting.  The same with Loughner, or Cho, or Lanza.
> 
> It wasn't like their insanity was a secret.  IN Holmes case, his university was in the process of expelling him for his mental issues.
> 
> Now, finding it hard to believe any of these guys were brilliant at hiding their issues. But it really should be on the gun industry to make sure these guys can't get guns.
> 
> After Timothy McVeigh did his thing, the manufacturers of fertilizers put in a whole series of checks to monitor who was buying their product and reporting anything suspicious to the government.  After 9-11, we did a whole lot of things to make the airports more secure.
> 
> But guns? Meh, let's slap the grieving parents of someone killed by a madman who was able to buy a gun with a quarter million dollar penalty for wanting their day in court.
Click to expand...


And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it.   Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uuummmm, where did you get the idea I said Gitmo was a good thing?  Oh yeah, your deluded thinking won't let you see past your own nose.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you implied they weren't as bad as WWII interment camps and called the people in them "enemy combantants".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the so called evidence you presented (Dodge City and Tombstone) that was local control, not federal, remember we're talking Federal and the Constitution so your misapplied definition of modern falls woefully short, not to mention the law in those town came around long after the founding fathers were dead and buried, oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that was the point. Heller invalidated LOCAL ordinances. Ones the people of DC and Chicago voted on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading what constituted "militia" to the founding fathers, try reading (first colonial) then state laws in the late 1700s, early 1800s requiring all males of age to own because they were part of the militia.  History is your friend, try learning it in it's entirety, not just those aspects you can skew to suit your world view.
> Again your misapplied "logic" is nothing more than opinion, an opinion that is patently obviously in the minority of some who live in fear.  Maybe we should create a Nerf world in a bubble for ya surrounded by government officials who control your every breathing moment where you can feel safe and sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so your bizarre interpretation of history aside, on what planet does Joker Holmes constitute a well regulated militia?
> 
> Because, really, we need laws that reflect the here and now, not what some slave rapist thought 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

Okay.......  What kinda drugs are you taking?
First those in Gitmo ARE enemy combatants, not protected by the Constitution but protected by the Geneva Convention.  The WWII internment camps WERE set up for American citizens and covered under the War Powers Act (1941).
Second, I knew you would bring up the locality instances.  Before you go patting yourself on the back thinking you scored a point let's talk about the Supremacy Clause........  You know, the clause that was relatively narrowly defined and narrowly applied until the 60s when the door was cracked open to a much broader application and is now being used by not only gun rights activists but also the left with many social issues.......  Double edged sword kinda thing.......
Finally I figure (based on your "bizarre" claim) you've had high school history and maybe, just maybe one or two classed in college, if you even went to college.
My study of history spans 4 years of college and decades of personal study, not to mention my studies in sociology and other related human sciences,  pretty sure I've got this history thing down pat.
Your comment about "slave rapists" speaks volumes, you want to change the Constitution to fit your ideology, thankfully it was designed to make that a difficult process so that loons like you and loons like, say..... Protectionist (your ultra-conservative mirror image) can't just make changes willy-nilly.


----------



## prison/con.net

us pro-gunners HAVE the guns and we aint giving them up just because you pass a law. So what you gonna do about THAT, Adolph?


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have YET to make any kind of valid point whatsoever. Just a bunch of paranoid blathering is all we can get out of you. Like you've been told before, there are at least TWICE as many DGU than crimes committed with guns. How many more times do you need to be given the information before it sinks into your thick retard skull?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, DGU's are a fantasy.   The FBI says there aren't more than 65,000 legit DGU's a year, and only 200 justified homicides with guns. compared to 32,000 gun deaths, and 300,000 gun crimes, it isn't worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Within HOURS after the crime? You see? Do you see how retarded you really are? You dumb arse, there is no way (if said person has on CRIMINAL RECORD) that anyone would know they are going to shoot someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, besides the fact that criminal records really don't stop crooks from getting  guns  DUE TO Gun show and private eller loopholes, the point is, everyone in this man's life knew he was crazy. His school was in the process of expelling him.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, but your constant references to "mass shootings" are meaningless since they make up LESS THAN 1% of all homicides.
> 
> Why are you not complaining about black on black gang violence which is, by FAR, a bigger problem. Why? Because you are a dumb fool, that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you deal with the obvious problems, first.  While domestic violence is a problem, a mass shooting incident is more likely to affect my life. And the problem is pretty fixable.
> 
> 1) real background checks
> 2) limits to the power of weapons available
> 3) Hold the gun industry accountable.
Click to expand...







Tell that to the 65,000 DGU users (your number, and artificially low) every year.  They would disagree with you.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun nut? Thanks again for proving your idiocy. I am a "rights nut." ALL of our rights deserve protection from assholes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, there are no "rights. There are privileges the rest of society thinks you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> 
> Now, the question is, should you be allowed the privilege of owning a military grade weapon?  Well, no.  Not in most cases.  you certainly don't need one to protect your home in the unlikely event of a crime.  Even ignoring the reality a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  A regular gun is perfectly adequate for you to kill your housemate in that argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.
> 
> There is simply no good reason for a guy like Joker Holmes to be able to buy a military grade weapon and a 100 round clip.
Click to expand...


Hey Shitforbrains. it was not a MILITARY GRADE WEAPON and there is no such thing as a 100 round CLIP

stupid is as Joeb posts


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Sidekick said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a sensible question. Looking to find fault, following up a chain to find a weak link, why not just blame the Pope or the Dalai Lama for not praying hard enough, or better yet, why not blame the Colorado Rockies for not hitting enough home runs to distract people from going to the movies so they never see Batman or get any ideas they're the Joker in real life to begin with. Could always just chalk it up to global warming and/or climate change, if only there were no cars in the world the shooter would never have made it to the scene of the crime. You maybe need a degree in Chaos Theory to sort this one out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I really don't.  In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.
Click to expand...

yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
Click to expand...


There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sidekick said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a sensible question. Looking to find fault, following up a chain to find a weak link, why not just blame the Pope or the Dalai Lama for not praying hard enough, or better yet, why not blame the Colorado Rockies for not hitting enough home runs to distract people from going to the movies so they never see Batman or get any ideas they're the Joker in real life to begin with. Could always just chalk it up to global warming and/or climate change, if only there were no cars in the world the shooter would never have made it to the scene of the crime. You maybe need a degree in Chaos Theory to sort this one out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I really don't.  In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia
Click to expand...


Joe should move to North Korea or some place like that.  I think he would like it there and fit right in.  He could have no rights, he could lose a bunch of weight, and he could worship a dear leader.


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
Click to expand...


Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

ChrisL said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety. 

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
Click to expand...


How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.


----------



## turtledude

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
Click to expand...


do you think its ok to try to ban guns by having Democrat run cities and Democrat pawns (the parents of dead children) filing multiple lawsuits against gun makers in the hope of bankrupting them?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

turtledude said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you think its ok to try to ban guns by having Democrat run cities and Democrat pawns (the parents of dead children) filing multiple lawsuits against gun makers in the hope of bankrupting them?
Click to expand...


I'm a guns right advocate; but I'm still questioning whether or not this is a perversion of the legal system. I get that people like Rachel Maddow have an unholy agenda though.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

ChrisL said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
Click to expand...


Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
Click to expand...


That is why the lawyers should also have to pay.


----------



## turtledude

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
Click to expand...

you mean slime sucking plaintiff's attorneys who filed this suit

they should be subjected to massive fines as well.


----------



## turtledude

TheGreatGatsby said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you think its ok to try to ban guns by having Democrat run cities and Democrat pawns (the parents of dead children) filing multiple lawsuits against gun makers in the hope of bankrupting them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a guns right advocate; but I'm still questioning whether or not this is a perversion of the legal system. I get that people like Rachel Maddow have an unholy agenda though.
Click to expand...

if the gun was made properly and not sold illegally by the maker to a dealer, what other possible legitimate grounds for a suit exists


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean slime sucking plaintiff's attorneys who filed this suit
> 
> they should be subjected to massive fines as well.
Click to expand...


Yes they should, because it is they who make the decision on whether or not to take a case.


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
Click to expand...


It's a good point.  The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

ChrisL said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a good point.  The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.
Click to expand...


Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a good point.  The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.
Click to expand...


Nope, I disagree.  I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him.  If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

ChrisL said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a good point.  The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I disagree.  I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him.  If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.
Click to expand...


Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a good point.  The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I disagree.  I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him.  If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.
Click to expand...


Well, as long as they aren't knowingly taking a frivolous suit, I don't see why they would have to worry.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

ChrisL said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point.  The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I disagree.  I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him.  If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as long as they aren't knowingly taking a frivolous suit, I don't see why they would have to worry.
Click to expand...


Not all lost suits are frivolous. This one clearly was. Perhaps though, a modest fine for suits that are thrown out and deemed frivolous.


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point.  The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I disagree.  I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him.  If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as long as they aren't knowingly taking a frivolous suit, I don't see why they would have to worry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all lost suits are frivolous. This one clearly was. Perhaps though, a modest fine for suits that are thrown out and deemed frivolous.
Click to expand...


I know that!  Lol!  I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit.  Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.


----------



## westwall

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
Click to expand...







The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit.  They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser.  The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

westwall said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit.  They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser.  The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.
Click to expand...


Malpractice is losing a suit? I'm not seeing that.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it.   Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.



The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun. 

And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> [
> Hey Shitforbrains. it was not a MILITARY GRADE WEAPON and there is no such thing as a 100 round CLIP
> 
> stupid is as Joeb posts



I say 'clip' because I know it pisses you gun nuts off.

But, yeah, the AR-15 was designed FOR THE MILITARY, so it's a military grade weapon.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it.   Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun.
> 
> And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.
Click to expand...


No, they didn't sell him the gun.  But they are the reason his name was not in the system.  And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.

Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law.  They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't.  That is enough.  But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, actually, I really don't.  In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia
Click to expand...


Once again, repeating the lie that Nazi Germany had gun control. Uh, no. Hitler actually repealed the Weimer Republic's gun laws.  the guy who confiscated all the guns in Germany was my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Since then, Germany does allow private gun ownership, but it isn't considered a "right", and you have to demonstrate you are a responsible gun owner. As a result, Germany has 250 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> No, they didn't sell him the gun. But they are the reason his name was not in the system. And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.
> 
> Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law. They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't. That is enough. But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.



No, they should go after the gun sellers. They should totally bankrupt these guys and make them pariahs in their communities.  they should railroad these guys in a kangaroo court with a jury of 12 moms who lost children to gun violence.

And when these guys have their lives COMPLETELY RUINED, the next gun sellers isn't going to sell to the crazy person, no matter what paperwork he has.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I know that! Lol! I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit. Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.



They also keep companies from acting in a reckless manner by keeping dangerous products off the shelf. 

So here you have a gun industry that pretty much acts in a reckless manner.  There's no universe where selling Joker Holmes an AR15 and a 100 round clip is a good idea.  But the thing is, the gun industry WANTS Joker homes and Jamal gangbanger and a bunch of other people to have them so scared little white people like you want them, too.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't sell him the gun. But they are the reason his name was not in the system. And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.
> 
> Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law. They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't. That is enough. But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should go after the gun sellers. They should totally bankrupt these guys and make them pariahs in their communities.  they should railroad these guys in a kangaroo court with a jury of 12 moms who lost children to gun violence.
> 
> And when these guys have their lives COMPLETELY RUINED, the next gun sellers isn't going to sell to the crazy person, no matter what paperwork he has.
Click to expand...


Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law.  You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color.   Utterly ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that! Lol! I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit. Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also keep companies from acting in a reckless manner by keeping dangerous products off the shelf.
> 
> So here you have a gun industry that pretty much acts in a reckless manner.  There's no universe where selling Joker Holmes an AR15 and a 100 round clip is a good idea.  But the thing is, the gun industry WANTS Joker homes and Jamal gangbanger and a bunch of other people to have them so scared little white people like you want them, too.
Click to expand...


First you have to prove that Holmes acted crazy when he was in the store.  You want to give mental health professionals a free pass, but send gun dealers to prison when they broke no law and followed the laws to the letter.   That is as crazy as Holmes, but without the balls to actually do anything.


----------



## BlackSand

JoeB131 said:


> If you are so fucking delusional that you don't think special interests are writing our laws,  just don't think there is anything I can do for you, other than recommend that the people you live with secure all sharp objects.
> 
> Product manufacturers CAN be held responsible for unethical business practices and reckless marketing strategies.  Again, I go back to the tobacco industry, which did things like marketing to children with cartoon characters.



So you agree that the politicians you elect can be bought and paid for ... And that manufactures can be held responsible for the lack of personal responsibility in progressive hellholes.

No surprises there ... That is pretty much the way of the world with progressives.
Never accept that responsibility or accountability associated with your decisions ... And always rely on the perpetual excuse that everything is someone else's fault.

I agree that you are fairly delusional ... And willfully inept at accepting responsibility.

.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it.   Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun.
> 
> And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.
Click to expand...


So tell us, a person goes to get a gun, passes a check and is sold a gun, and you want to hold the seller responsible for . . . what exactly?


----------



## ChrisL

TheGreatGatsby said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit.  They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser.  The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Malpractice is losing a suit? I'm not seeing that.
Click to expand...


I think the malpractice would be taking a case that you know isn't going to go anywhere.  It's not like the lawyers don't know.  They know.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it.   Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun.
> 
> And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell us, a person goes to get a gun, passes a check and is sold a gun, and you want to hold the seller responsible for . . . what exactly?
Click to expand...


JoeyB wants to hold the gun seller responsible for knowing the mental state of the customer AND for what he does with the gun after he leaves the store.

But he doesn't want to hold the mental health professionals responsible for reporting crazies to the system, as they are required to do.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, actually, I really don't.  In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, repeating the lie that Nazi Germany had gun control. Uh, no. Hitler actually repealed the Weimer Republic's gun laws.  the guy who confiscated all the guns in Germany was my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
> 
> Since then, Germany does allow private gun ownership, but it isn't considered a "right", and you have to demonstrate you are a responsible gun owner. As a result, Germany has 250 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.
Click to expand...


You are another liar with no integrity.  How can you live with yourself knowing that you are a slimy piece of crud?  

Should U.S. Gun-Rights Advocates Be Citing the Holocaust in Their Opposition to Gun Control Tablet Magazine

There are various degrees of myth and truth in both perspectives. Unfortunately, most recapitulations of National Socialist gun-control policy are written not by experts in German history but by various ideological players. Still,* it is indeed true that in 1938, the Nazis expanded upon Germany’s already restrictive gun laws, most of which were established during the Weimar Republic. The Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons decreed that “Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as cutting or stabbing weapons. Those now having in their possession weapons and ammunition must at once surrender them to the local police authority.”*


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, actually, I really don't.  In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, repeating the lie that Nazi Germany had gun control. Uh, no. Hitler actually repealed the Weimer Republic's gun laws.  the guy who confiscated all the guns in Germany was my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
> 
> Since then, Germany does allow private gun ownership, but it isn't considered a "right", and you have to demonstrate you are a responsible gun owner. As a result, Germany has 250 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.
Click to expand...


control freaks like you never tell us how you would get the USA to that point
conquered nations have their guns taken away by the conquerors.  I bet you have wet dreams of UN thugs seizing american arms?  the fact is NO ONE Believes your constant garment soiling complaints about guns is based on your desire for less crime


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that! Lol! I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit. Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also keep companies from acting in a reckless manner by keeping dangerous products off the shelf.
> 
> So here you have a gun industry that pretty much acts in a reckless manner.  There's no universe where selling Joker Holmes an AR15 and a 100 round clip is a good idea.  But the thing is, the gun industry WANTS Joker homes and Jamal gangbanger and a bunch of other people to have them so scared little white people like you want them, too.
Click to expand...


Joeb Shows his true colors-guns should be banned.  he lies about what the gun industry does because he really wants NO ONE to be able to own a gun while freedom loving americans realize WE NEED GUNS in case assholes like JOEB get into power and want to use MEN WITH GUNS to oppress gun owners


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't sell him the gun. But they are the reason his name was not in the system. And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.
> 
> Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law. They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't. That is enough. But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should go after the gun sellers. They should totally bankrupt these guys and make them pariahs in their communities.  they should railroad these guys in a kangaroo court with a jury of 12 moms who lost children to gun violence.
> 
> And when these guys have their lives COMPLETELY RUINED, the next gun sellers isn't going to sell to the crazy person, no matter what paperwork he has.
Click to expand...


then that gun seller who had his life ruined should target those who ruined their lives and get even withthem.  that is why we should have guns-if someone wrongfully ruins your life, you have the recourse to fight the oppression with arms.  People most whining about gun rights tend to be the scumbags who engage in behavior that would justify GOOD HONEST PEOPLE shooting them.  Crooks, child molesters, robbers, and power hungry government thugs.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Hey Shitforbrains. it was not a MILITARY GRADE WEAPON and there is no such thing as a 100 round CLIP
> 
> stupid is as Joeb posts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say 'clip' because I know it pisses you gun nuts off.
> 
> But, yeah, the AR-15 was designed FOR THE MILITARY, so it's a military grade weapon.
Click to expand...


we laugh as you demonstrate you are a lying asshole who is ignorant about the facts.
the AR 15 in full auto was moron.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, actually, I really don't.  In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, repeating the lie that Nazi Germany had gun control. Uh, no. Hitler actually repealed the Weimer Republic's gun laws.  the guy who confiscated all the guns in Germany was my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
> 
> Since then, Germany does allow private gun ownership, but it isn't considered a "right", and you have to demonstrate you are a responsible gun owner. As a result, Germany has 250 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> control freaks like you never tell us how you would get the USA to that point
> conquered nations have their guns taken away by the conquerors.  I bet you have wet dreams of UN thugs seizing american arms?  the fact is NO ONE Believes your constant garment soiling complaints about guns is based on your desire for less crime
Click to expand...


Well, keep in mind, that Joe, in the past, has referred to the Jews as "pussies" for not "fighting back" against the Nazis.


----------



## westwall

TheGreatGatsby said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit.  They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser.  The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Malpractice is losing a suit? I'm not seeing that.
Click to expand...








Malpractice is pushing a frivolous lawsuit.  If a "reasonable person" can determine the suit to be frivolous, a Lawyer is EXPECTED too.


----------



## Statistikhengst

westwall said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.
> 
> I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit.  I don't see anything unreasonable about that.  Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay.  I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit.  They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser.  The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Malpractice is losing a suit? I'm not seeing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malpractice is pushing a frivolous lawsuit.  If a "reasonable person" can determine the suit to be frivolous, a Lawyer is EXPECTED too.
Click to expand...



Indeed.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law.  You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color.   Utterly ridiculous.



Guy, did you see Holmes at his arraignment?  Are you really telling me that a gun store employee couldn't tell that guy was nuts?


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law.  You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color.   Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, did you see Holmes at his arraignment?  Are you really telling me that a gun store employee couldn't tell that guy was nuts?
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge the store owner is not a licensed practicing psychiatrist....... 
And you're telling us you can spot a crazy just by looking at them or talking with them for a few minutes........  
How about this guy?  Look nuts to you? 






This one's gotta be nuts, right?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law.  You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color.   Utterly ridiculous.



Guy, did you see Holmes at his arraignment?  Are you really telling me that a gun store e


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Joeb Shows his true colors-guns should be banned. he lies about what the gun industry does because he really wants NO ONE to be able to own a gun while freedom loving americans realize WE NEED GUNS in case assholes like JOEB get into power and want to use MEN WITH GUNS to oppress gun owners



Guy, big corporations took your freedom a long time ago. Clinging to your gun and your bible doesn't change.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law.  You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color.   Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, did you see Holmes at his arraignment?  Are you really telling me that a gun store employee couldn't tell that guy was nuts?
Click to expand...


Guy, do you know for a fact that is what he looked like in the gun shop??    Holmes is looking for an insanity plea.  Of course he looked crazy.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> To the best of my knowledge the store owner is not a licensed practicing psychiatrist.......
> And you're telling us you can spot a crazy just by looking at them or talking with them for a few minutes........
> How about this guy? Look nuts to you?



Yeah, sure, whatever.

Again, everyone in the Jokers' life knew he was nuts...except his gun dealer?

But I'd hang that gun dealer even if I thought he was totally innocent, because it will make the next one think twice.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge the store owner is not a licensed practicing psychiatrist.......
> And you're telling us you can spot a crazy just by looking at them or talking with them for a few minutes........
> How about this guy? Look nuts to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure, whatever.
> 
> Again, everyone in the Jokers' life knew he was nuts...except his gun dealer?
> 
> But I'd hang that gun dealer even if I thought he was totally innocent, because it will make the next one think twice.
Click to expand...


No you wouldn't.  YOU wouldn't hang anyone.  You want the gov't to do it for you.

You want the gun dealers hung but the mental health professionals get a free pass.   You are the insane one.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge the store owner is not a licensed practicing psychiatrist.......
> And you're telling us you can spot a crazy just by looking at them or talking with them for a few minutes........
> How about this guy? Look nuts to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure, whatever.
> 
> Again, everyone in the Jokers' life knew he was nuts...except his gun dealer?
> 
> But I'd hang that gun dealer even if I thought he was totally innocent, because it will make the next one think twice.
Click to expand...

His gun dealer knew him on a daily personal level.......?
Of course you're violate an innocent persons civil rights, as long as it suited your sociopolitical outlook........
You're not related to Joseph McCarthy are you?


----------



## WinterBorn

Ringel05 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge the store owner is not a licensed practicing psychiatrist.......
> And you're telling us you can spot a crazy just by looking at them or talking with them for a few minutes........
> How about this guy? Look nuts to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure, whatever.
> 
> Again, everyone in the Jokers' life knew he was nuts...except his gun dealer?
> 
> But I'd hang that gun dealer even if I thought he was totally innocent, because it will make the next one think twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His gun dealer knew him on a daily personal level.......?
> Of course you're violate an innocent persons civil rights, as long as it suited your sociopolitical outlook........
> You're not related to Joseph McCarthy are you?
Click to expand...


Even the other anti-gun nuts think JoeyB's ideas are crazy.

And his ideology is worse than Joe McCarthy ever THOUGHT about being.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law.  You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color.   Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, did you see Holmes at his arraignment?  Are you really telling me that a gun store employee couldn't tell that guy was nuts?
Click to expand...








Oh, gee, Holmes was staging a performance for the judge and potential jury members..."see, look at me!  I'm crazy!  Crazy I tell you!  Find me not guilty because I'm crazy!"  And look at that, joeb is so dumb he fell for it.  Works every time!


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> No you wouldn't. YOU wouldn't hang anyone. You want the gov't to do it for you.
> 
> You want the gun dealers hung but the mental health professionals get a free pass. You are the insane one.



Insanity is giving a crazy person a military grade weapon because 250 years ago, some slave-rapist couldn't write a militia amendment properly.

Since it is next to impossible to commit the insane, I really don't put this on the MH professionals.  I put it on the gun dealers.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Oh, gee, Holmes was staging a performance for the judge and potential jury members..."see, look at me! I'm crazy! Crazy I tell you! Find me not guilty because I'm crazy!" And look at that, joeb is so dumb he fell for it. Works every time!



I don't think it's an "act".  The guy really does think he's a psychotic clown from a comic book.  But I'm sure you can explain what his "devious" plan was.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> His gun dealer knew him on a daily personal level.......?
> Of course you're violate an innocent persons civil rights, as long as it suited your sociopolitical outlook........
> You're not related to Joseph McCarthy are you?



Uh, no, guy, he doesn't have a civil right to a business.  He should be responsible for the consequences of this business's actions.

I'm not seeing a world where giving a guy who thinks he's the Joker a machine gun with a 100 round magazine is ever a good idea.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His gun dealer knew him on a daily personal level.......?
> Of course you're violate an innocent persons civil rights, as long as it suited your sociopolitical outlook........
> You're not related to Joseph McCarthy are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy, he doesn't have a civil right to a business.  He should be responsible for the consequences of this business's actions.
> 
> I'm not seeing a world where giving a guy who thinks he's the Joker a machine gun with a 100 round magazine is ever a good idea.
Click to expand...

 
No one gave a guy who thinks he is the Joker a machine gun. .. there was no machine gun involved at all.  The suit was against internet suppliers of ammo and accesories.  The dealers never met Holmes in person whatsoever. ..

This was a lawsuit orchestrated for political purposes by the Brady Campaign which is increasingly losing its position as the most influential gun control group in the USA-- being out spent by Bloombergs astroturf organizations.  They have turned their attention to litigation in an attempt to make a big splash with high profile headlines.  They badly misjudged the law.  I hope the Brady Campaign pays the bill instead of these poor parents who were used as pawns by Brady's attorneys.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you wouldn't. YOU wouldn't hang anyone. You want the gov't to do it for you.
> 
> You want the gun dealers hung but the mental health professionals get a free pass. You are the insane one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insanity is giving a crazy person a military grade weapon because 250 years ago, some slave-rapist couldn't write a militia amendment properly.
> 
> Since it is next to impossible to commit the insane, I really don't put this on the MH professionals.  I put it on the gun dealers.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we know you put it on the gun dealers.  You will have an easier time just making all guns illegal than to send someone to prison for following the law to the letter and for doing something for which they had federal approval.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yeah, we know you put it on the gun dealers. You will have an easier time just making all guns illegal than to send someone to prison for following the law to the letter and for doing something for which they had federal approval.



The old saying is, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

If you guys think you are in the right, you should welcome the your day in court.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we know you put it on the gun dealers. You will have an easier time just making all guns illegal than to send someone to prison for following the law to the letter and for doing something for which they had federal approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old saying is, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> If you guys think you are in the right, you should welcome the your day in court.
Click to expand...

 
 They did get their day in court--- and they won.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, gee, Holmes was staging a performance for the judge and potential jury members..."see, look at me! I'm crazy! Crazy I tell you! Find me not guilty because I'm crazy!" And look at that, joeb is so dumb he fell for it. Works every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an "act".  The guy really does think he's a psychotic clown from a comic book.  But I'm sure you can explain what his "devious" plan was.
Click to expand...






Sure you don't.  That way your silly little meme works.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we know you put it on the gun dealers. You will have an easier time just making all guns illegal than to send someone to prison for following the law to the letter and for doing something for which they had federal approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old saying is, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> If you guys think you are in the right, you should welcome the your day in court.
Click to expand...


Yep, you probably CAN get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

But there is one tiny detail you seem to have forgotten (or didn't know).  Namely that a grand jury indictment does not mean anything except that there will be a trial.  With a jury.   And you will play hell trying to convince 12 citizens that the gun dealer, who followed all the rules and laws, is guilty of any crime.

Oh, and exactly what would the charges against the gun dealer be?


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law.  You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color.   Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, did you see Holmes at his arraignment?  Are you really telling me that a gun store employee couldn't tell that guy was nuts?
Click to expand...

 The complaint was filed against internet suppliers of ammo and accesories.  They allege that none of the defendants had any physical encounter with Holmes.   Nor do we have any idea what he looked like when he made the purchases anyway.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His gun dealer knew him on a daily personal level.......?
> Of course you're violate an innocent persons civil rights, as long as it suited your sociopolitical outlook........
> You're not related to Joseph McCarthy are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy, he doesn't have a civil right to a business.  He should be responsible for the consequences of this business's actions.
> 
> I'm not seeing a world where giving a guy who thinks he's the Joker a machine gun with a 100 round magazine is ever a good idea.
Click to expand...

I never said he had a civil right to a business, he does have a right to due process which you just stated you would deny him, "even if he's innocent.....", do you always twist what people say to fit your my way or the highway, the constitution be damned world view?  Friggin' pathetic sputz.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yep, you probably CAN get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> But there is one tiny detail you seem to have forgotten (or didn't know). Namely that a grand jury indictment does not mean anything except that there will be a trial. With a jury. And you will play hell trying to convince 12 citizens that the gun dealer, who followed all the rules and laws, is guilty of any crime.
> 
> Oh, and exactly what would the charges against the gun dealer be?



Accessory to murder.  12 counts.  Problem solved. 

and you have a jury of 12 moms.  Problem solved. 

Just slap down the crime scene photos of dead kids.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> I never said he had a civil right to a business, he does have a right to due process which you just stated you would deny him, "even if he's innocent.....", do you always twist what people say to fit your my way or the highway, the constitution be damned world view? Friggin' pathetic sputz



Um, yeah.  He sold a weapon to a crazy person and 12 people died.  There really isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.

I don't really care what the law or the constitution says. Just like I don't think we should let an ax-murderer go because a cop didn't have "probable cause" when he found his dead wife and the bloody ax in a trunk.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> The complaint was filed against internet suppliers of ammo and accesories. They allege that none of the defendants had any physical encounter with Holmes. Nor do we have any idea what he looked like when he made the purchases anyway.



that makes them more guilty, don't you think?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb Shows his true colors-guns should be banned. he lies about what the gun industry does because he really wants NO ONE to be able to own a gun while freedom loving americans realize WE NEED GUNS in case assholes like JOEB get into power and want to use MEN WITH GUNS to oppress gun owners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, big corporations took your freedom a long time ago. Clinging to your gun and your bible doesn't change.
Click to expand...


as usual that is an idiotic comment.  I am very wealthy mainly because of say my ancestors buying up lots of PG stock.  You are afraid of honest people being armed

why? do you engage in activity that would justify someone capping your ass?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you wouldn't. YOU wouldn't hang anyone. You want the gov't to do it for you.
> 
> You want the gun dealers hung but the mental health professionals get a free pass. You are the insane one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insanity is giving a crazy person a military grade weapon because 250 years ago, some slave-rapist couldn't write a militia amendment properly.
> 
> Since it is next to impossible to commit the insane, I really don't put this on the MH professionals.  I put it on the gun dealers.
Click to expand...


do you understand that a bolt action single shot rifle is "military grade" 

and the AR15 as bought by Holmes has NEVER Been 

stop voiding your garments over guns


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you probably CAN get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> But there is one tiny detail you seem to have forgotten (or didn't know). Namely that a grand jury indictment does not mean anything except that there will be a trial. With a jury. And you will play hell trying to convince 12 citizens that the gun dealer, who followed all the rules and laws, is guilty of any crime.
> 
> Oh, and exactly what would the charges against the gun dealer be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accessory to murder.  12 counts.  Problem solved.
> 
> and you have a jury of 12 moms.  Problem solved.
> 
> Just slap down the crime scene photos of dead kids.
Click to expand...

won't survive a motion for a directed verdict after the plaintiff's case is presented

in fact it won't survive a motion to quash the indictment

and any DA who even tries to bring that sort of case should be hung for treason


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge the store owner is not a licensed practicing psychiatrist.......
> And you're telling us you can spot a crazy just by looking at them or talking with them for a few minutes........
> How about this guy? Look nuts to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure, whatever.
> 
> Again, everyone in the Jokers' life knew he was nuts...except his gun dealer?
> 
> But I'd hang that gun dealer even if I thought he was totally innocent, because it will make the next one think twice.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you probably CAN get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> But there is one tiny detail you seem to have forgotten (or didn't know). Namely that a grand jury indictment does not mean anything except that there will be a trial. With a jury. And you will play hell trying to convince 12 citizens that the gun dealer, who followed all the rules and laws, is guilty of any crime.
> 
> Oh, and exactly what would the charges against the gun dealer be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accessory to murder.  12 counts.  Problem solved.
> 
> and you have a jury of 12 moms.  Problem solved.
> 
> Just slap down the crime scene photos of dead kids.
Click to expand...


Could you be a bigger idiot?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you wouldn't. YOU wouldn't hang anyone. You want the gov't to do it for you.
> 
> You want the gun dealers hung but the mental health professionals get a free pass. You are the insane one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insanity is giving a crazy person a military grade weapon because 250 years ago, some slave-rapist couldn't write a militia amendment properly.
> 
> Since it is next to impossible to commit the insane, I really don't put this on the MH professionals.  I put it on the gun dealers.
Click to expand...


There was no way the dealer could have known his mental status.  Obviously, if it were you trying to purchase a weapon, that would be a different story.  You are stark raving mad.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said he had a civil right to a business, he does have a right to due process which you just stated you would deny him, "even if he's innocent.....", do you always twist what people say to fit your my way or the highway, the constitution be damned world view? Friggin' pathetic sputz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.  He sold a weapon to a crazy person and 12 people died.  There really isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I don't really care what the law or the constitution says. Just like I don't think we should let an ax-murderer go because a cop didn't have "probable cause" when he found his dead wife and the bloody ax in a trunk.
Click to expand...


You don't care what the law or the constitution says?  

A person who sells guns is not a psychiatrist, as was pointed out.  A gun dealer is not QUALIFIED to make any kind of diagnosis at all.  In fact, if the dealer had tried to do that, he would violating the rights of the buyer.  Also, this man had not committed ANY crimes at the time when he purchased the weapon.  

You are bloody insane, govna!


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said he had a civil right to a business, he does have a right to due process which you just stated you would deny him, "even if he's innocent.....", do you always twist what people say to fit your my way or the highway, the constitution be damned world view? Friggin' pathetic sputz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.  He sold a weapon to a crazy person and 12 people died.  There really isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I don't really care what the law or the constitution says. Just like I don't think we should let an ax-murderer go because a cop didn't have "probable cause" when he found his dead wife and the bloody ax in a trunk.
Click to expand...

You're comparison is pathetically unhinged at best.  What are you, 16?  17?  If so that would give you an excuse for being who and what you are.


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you probably CAN get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> But there is one tiny detail you seem to have forgotten (or didn't know). Namely that a grand jury indictment does not mean anything except that there will be a trial. With a jury. And you will play hell trying to convince 12 citizens that the gun dealer, who followed all the rules and laws, is guilty of any crime.
> 
> Oh, and exactly what would the charges against the gun dealer be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accessory to murder.  12 counts.  Problem solved.
> 
> and you have a jury of 12 moms.  Problem solved.
> 
> Just slap down the crime scene photos of dead kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you be a bigger idiot?
Click to expand...

only if he gains weight


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complaint was filed against internet suppliers of ammo and accesories. They allege that none of the defendants had any physical encounter with Holmes. Nor do we have any idea what he looked like when he made the purchases anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that makes them more guilty, don't you think?
Click to expand...


Nope it makes it plainly frivolous and subject to sanctions as there was no reason for the online seller to suspect anything was amiss. It was also going against significant legal precedent against them.  The Brady Campaign was the primary mover of this lawsuit and I hope the judge makes them pay the lawyer fees rather than the parents.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you wouldn't. YOU wouldn't hang anyone. You want the gov't to do it for you.
> 
> You want the gun dealers hung but the mental health professionals get a free pass. You are the insane one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insanity is giving a crazy person a military grade weapon because 250 years ago, some slave-rapist couldn't write a militia amendment properly.
> 
> Since it is next to impossible to commit the insane, I really don't put this on the MH professionals.  I put it on the gun dealers.
Click to expand...


In this particular case, the Defendants did not sell any weapon to Holmes, let alone military grade weapons.

Since none of the defendants were gun dealers, you should be pleased with the result.

The AR-15 is not and never has been a "military grade" weapon is is not employed by any modern military force in the world as its primary battle weapon because they prefer fully automatic weapons or weapons capable of burst fire, like the M-16.

205 years ago some slave-rapist did write a militia amendment properly... it read:



> "That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same."



That was part of the Amendments proffered by the Virginia ratifying convention to alter the body of the constitution and including such things a term limits for the president and that salaries of public officials not be raised or lowered during their term of office-- miscellaneous adjustments. 

In addition to amendments offered to the body of the Constitution, the Virginia Ratifying Convention proposed that  "there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the People in some such manner as the following."



> Among those rights declared by Virginia  to be the essential and unalienable Rights of the People was the following:
> 
> That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and siezures
> 
> That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for the common good, or to instruct their Representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.
> 
> That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; but the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated.
> 
> That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.



Bogus and Hartman did not mention that, did they?


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Accessory to murder.  12 counts.  Problem solved.
> .



Would be dismissed at a pre trial motion and the DA probably required to pay the defendants reasonable attorney fees as well as being disbarred.

Problem solved.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> as usual that is an idiotic comment. I am very wealthy mainly because of say my ancestors buying up lots of PG stock. You are afraid of honest people being armed
> 
> why? do you engage in activity that would justify someone capping your ass?



I'm afraid of crazy people who talk about their desire to shoot people being armed.  Just like you've said more than  few times on this thread.  

I can kind of see why you'd be terrified of psych tests for gun ownership.  You answer on the Rorschach test is probably "Someone dun gettin' his brains blown out!" 



turtledude said:


> do you understand that a bolt action single shot rifle is "military grade"
> 
> and the AR15 as bought by Holmes has NEVER Been
> 
> stop voiding your garments over guns



I had M-16's in my arms vault that were marked as "AR-15".  (They were the first batches that were delivered to the Army back in the day.)  

12 people are dead because the gun industry sold Joke Holmes a gun.  I honestly worry about your lack of concern about that. Makes me wonder about your humanity.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> The AR-15 is not and never has been a "military grade" weapon is is not employed by any modern military force in the world as its primary battle weapon because they prefer fully automatic weapons or weapons capable of burst fire, like the M-16.
> 
> 205 years ago some slave-rapist did write a militia amendment properly... it read:



Uh, no, they didn't. 

And the AR-15 was designed for the Army.  It NEVER should have been introduced into civilian hands.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> won't survive a motion for a directed verdict after the plaintiff's case is presented
> 
> in fact it won't survive a motion to quash the indictment
> 
> and any DA who even tries to bring that sort of case should be hung for treason



Man, just pissing yourself at the thought the Gun Industry might face the music in court. 

again, put a few autopsy photos and crying moms on the stand.  Problem solved.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> Nope it makes it plainly frivolous and subject to sanctions as there was no reason for the online seller to suspect anything was amiss. It was also going against significant legal precedent against them. The Brady Campaign was the primary mover of this lawsuit and I hope the judge makes them pay the lawyer fees rather than the parents.



If the Gun Industry was acting responsibly, you might have a point.  

It doesn't.  It's goal is to put as many guns out there to scare everyone else into wanting them. 

And much like we needed lawsuits to finally put the Tobacco Industry into its place, we need to do the same to the gun industry.  A few multi-million dollar judgements will do nicely.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> There was no way the dealer could have known his mental status. Obviously, if it were you trying to purchase a weapon, that would be a different story. You are stark raving mad.



There were a bunch of ways to tell his mental status.  

It's the same way employers don't hire crazy people.  They ask for references-  Acquaintences, jobs, schools.  

Fact was, they didn't BOTHER to find out his mental state.  The thought he was just a really big Heath Ledger fan or something.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> as usual that is an idiotic comment. I am very wealthy mainly because of say my ancestors buying up lots of PG stock. You are afraid of honest people being armed
> 
> why? do you engage in activity that would justify someone capping your ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid of crazy people who talk about their desire to shoot people being armed.  Just like you've said more than  few times on this thread.
> 
> I can kind of see why you'd be terrified of psych tests for gun ownership.  You answer on the Rorschach test is probably "Someone dun gettin' his brains blown out!"
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you understand that a bolt action single shot rifle is "military grade"
> 
> and the AR15 as bought by Holmes has NEVER Been
> 
> stop voiding your garments over guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had M-16's in my arms vault that were marked as "AR-15".  (They were the first batches that were delivered to the Army back in the day.)
> 
> 12 people are dead because the gun industry sold Joke Holmes a gun.  I honestly worry about your lack of concern about that. Makes me wonder about your humanity.
Click to expand...







Well, that's a lie.  The very first AR-15's were delivered to the USAF, and yes they were marked AR-15, but you ignore the follow up designation, which is also on the rifle, that being MODEL 614.  A very rare variant.  I owned one years ago.  They were Select fire-full auto weapons.

Pictured below is an example.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it makes it plainly frivolous and subject to sanctions as there was no reason for the online seller to suspect anything was amiss. It was also going against significant legal precedent against them. The Brady Campaign was the primary mover of this lawsuit and I hope the judge makes them pay the lawyer fees rather than the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Gun Industry was acting responsibly, you might have a point.
> 
> It doesn't.  It's goal is to put as many guns out there to scare everyone else into wanting them.
> 
> And much like we needed lawsuits to finally put the Tobacco Industry into its place, we need to do the same to the gun industry.  A few multi-million dollar judgements will do nicely.
Click to expand...







The "Gun Industry" is the most responsible industry out there.  They are THE most heavily regulated industry on the planet having to negotiate a series of City, County, State, Federal, and UN laws.  You are simply a blithering idiot when you ignore those very real facts.  There are already 20,000 gun control laws on the books here in this country.  The States with the fewest gun laws also enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Gun laws only empower the criminals.  They know it.  Politicians know, and so do you.  You don't give a flying fuck about innocent people being harmed by violent gangs.  No you want to disarm the law abiding to make the violent behavior of the criminal element of this country safer....for the criminals.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Well, that's a lie. The very first AR-15's were delivered to the USAF, and yes they were marked AR-15, but you ignore the follow up designation, which is also on the rifle, that being MODEL 614. A very rare variant. I owned one years ago. They were Select fire-full auto weapons.
> 
> Pictured below is an example.



Yes, that's what we had.  You are proving my point.  the AR-15 was a military weapon desgined for the military.  



westwall said:


> The "Gun Industry" is the most responsible industry out there. They are THE most heavily regulated industry on the planet having to negotiate a series of City, County, State, Federal, and UN laws. You are simply a blithering idiot when you ignore those very real facts. There are already 20,000 gun control laws on the books here in this country. The States with the fewest gun laws also enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence.



So many fallacies in that statement.  First, 20k laws usually include things like "Don't shoot your gun in the air in a residential neighborhood", something that wouldn't be an issue in a sane country where civilians aren't allowed to own guns to start with.  

Second, Texas has a higher gun violence rate than most of the country.  So does Arizona. They have the most lax gun laws in the country.  



westwall said:


> Gun laws only empower the criminals. They know it. Politicians know, and so do you. You don't give a flying fuck about innocent people being harmed by violent gangs. No you want to disarm the law abiding to make the violent behavior of the criminal element of this country safer....for the criminals.



Germany- Japan- Australia - the United Kingdom- France - Italy - All have very strict gun laws and they have VASTLY lower crime rates than we do.  

And most gun deaths are suicides, accidents or domestic arguments gone wrong.  IN fact, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention cited that there were only 2014 "gang related" homicides in 2010 and only 1824 in 2011.   

Now, going to be REALLY generous and assume all 1824 of those gang homicides were done with guns and not knives and clubs and fists.   Fact is in 2011, we had 11,101 gun homicides.  SOOOO really, gang related homicides were only 16% of gun homicides even if they were all committed with guns, which they probably weren't.   There were a total of 16,000 homicides in 2011, so gang violence only made up 11% of all homicides.

More Gangs Fewer Gang Homicides 

Sorry, man, most gun deaths are those 'law abiding' gun owners killing themselves or their loved ones.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a lie. The very first AR-15's were delivered to the USAF, and yes they were marked AR-15, but you ignore the follow up designation, which is also on the rifle, that being MODEL 614. A very rare variant. I owned one years ago. They were Select fire-full auto weapons.
> 
> Pictured below is an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what we had.  You are proving my point.  the AR-15 was a military weapon desgined for the military.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Gun Industry" is the most responsible industry out there. They are THE most heavily regulated industry on the planet having to negotiate a series of City, County, State, Federal, and UN laws. You are simply a blithering idiot when you ignore those very real facts. There are already 20,000 gun control laws on the books here in this country. The States with the fewest gun laws also enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many fallacies in that statement.  First, 20k laws usually include things like "Don't shoot your gun in the air in a residential neighborhood", something that wouldn't be an issue in a sane country where civilians aren't allowed to own guns to start with.
> 
> Second, Texas has a higher gun violence rate than most of the country.  So does Arizona. They have the most lax gun laws in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun laws only empower the criminals. They know it. Politicians know, and so do you. You don't give a flying fuck about innocent people being harmed by violent gangs. No you want to disarm the law abiding to make the violent behavior of the criminal element of this country safer....for the criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany- Japan- Australia - the United Kingdom- France - Italy - All have very strict gun laws and they have VASTLY lower crime rates than we do.
> 
> And most gun deaths are suicides, accidents or domestic arguments gone wrong.  IN fact, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention cited that there were only 2014 "gang related" homicides in 2010 and only 1824 in 2011.
> 
> Now, going to be REALLY generous and assume all 1824 of those gang homicides were done with guns and not knives and clubs and fists.   Fact is in 2011, we had 11,101 gun homicides.  SOOOO really, gang related homicides were only 16% of gun homicides even if they were all committed with guns, which they probably weren't.   There were a total of 16,000 homicides in 2011, so gang violence only made up 11% of all homicides.
> 
> More Gangs Fewer Gang Homicides
> 
> Sorry, man, most gun deaths are those 'law abiding' gun owners killing themselves or their loved ones.
Click to expand...








No, I'm just proving that I know a hell of a lot more about weaponry than you do.  It is not a AR-15, it IS a AR-15 Model 614.  TWO entirely different weapons, they merely look alike.  But they have different functionality.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No, I'm just proving that I know a hell of a lot more about weaponry than you do. It is not a AR-15, it IS a AR-15 Model 614. TWO entirely different weapons, they merely look alike. But they have different functionality.



Guy, my MOS in the Army was 76Y, which is Armorer/Supply NCO.  

You are evading the point.  the AR-15 and M16 are the same weapon.  The only difference is that the one Joker Holmes got couldn't fire full auto.  

It was still good enough for him to kill 12 people and injure 70 others.  

Which doesn't seem to bother you for some reason....


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> won't survive a motion for a directed verdict after the plaintiff's case is presented
> 
> in fact it won't survive a motion to quash the indictment
> 
> and any DA who even tries to bring that sort of case should be hung for treason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, just pissing yourself at the thought the Gun Industry might face the music in court.
> 
> again, put a few autopsy photos and crying moms on the stand.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...


It will never happen.   Sure, you want the emotional touch.  I can see why.  You have no logical reason to send the gun dealer to jail.  But the laws in this country are sorta against what your plan.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm just proving that I know a hell of a lot more about weaponry than you do. It is not a AR-15, it IS a AR-15 Model 614. TWO entirely different weapons, they merely look alike. But they have different functionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, my MOS in the Army was 76Y, which is Armorer/Supply NCO.
> 
> You are evading the point.  the AR-15 and M16 are the same weapon.  The only difference is that the one Joker Holmes got couldn't fire full auto.
> 
> It was still good enough for him to kill 12 people and injure 70 others.
> 
> Which doesn't seem to bother you for some reason....
Click to expand...







They are?  There is a part in the AR-15 that will work in both the 15 and the 16, but the same part from an M-16 WILL NOT WORK IN A AR-15.  What is that part?  And BTW it is critical to operation.

As far as Holmes go's, it bothers me that you wish to make it easier for assholes to murder mass quantities of people.  Here you go, gun control paradise.  How did that work out for the victims?

77 dead in a country where guns are very heavily regulated.  

2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a lie. The very first AR-15's were delivered to the USAF, and yes they were marked AR-15, but you ignore the follow up designation, which is also on the rifle, that being MODEL 614. A very rare variant. I owned one years ago. They were Select fire-full auto weapons.
> 
> Pictured below is an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what we had.  You are proving my point.  the AR-15 was a military weapon desgined for the military.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Gun Industry" is the most responsible industry out there. They are THE most heavily regulated industry on the planet having to negotiate a series of City, County, State, Federal, and UN laws. You are simply a blithering idiot when you ignore those very real facts. There are already 20,000 gun control laws on the books here in this country. The States with the fewest gun laws also enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many fallacies in that statement.  First, 20k laws usually include things like "Don't shoot your gun in the air in a residential neighborhood", something that wouldn't be an issue in a sane country where civilians aren't allowed to own guns to start with.
> 
> Second, Texas has a higher gun violence rate than most of the country.  So does Arizona. They have the most lax gun laws in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun laws only empower the criminals. They know it. Politicians know, and so do you. You don't give a flying fuck about innocent people being harmed by violent gangs. No you want to disarm the law abiding to make the violent behavior of the criminal element of this country safer....for the criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany- Japan- Australia - the United Kingdom- France - Italy - All have very strict gun laws and they have VASTLY lower crime rates than we do.
> 
> And most gun deaths are suicides, accidents or domestic arguments gone wrong.  IN fact, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention cited that there were only 2014 "gang related" homicides in 2010 and only 1824 in 2011.
> 
> Now, going to be REALLY generous and assume all 1824 of those gang homicides were done with guns and not knives and clubs and fists.   Fact is in 2011, we had 11,101 gun homicides.  SOOOO really, gang related homicides were only 16% of gun homicides even if they were all committed with guns, which they probably weren't.   There were a total of 16,000 homicides in 2011, so gang violence only made up 11% of all homicides.
> 
> More Gangs Fewer Gang Homicides
> 
> Sorry, man, most gun deaths are those 'law abiding' gun owners killing themselves or their loved ones.
Click to expand...


And the best fact of all, that more than 99.9% of the legal gun owners in the US were not involved in any murder.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> It will never happen. Sure, you want the emotional touch. I can see why. You have no logical reason to send the gun dealer to jail. But the laws in this country are sorta against what your plan.



I have a very logical reason- 

He's part of an industry that profits off of death and misery.  

Just like when they took Big Tobacco to court, and found out that they were intentionally spiking the cigarettes with nicotine and marketting them to kiddies.  

I'd like to shake out the whole gun industry, all their internal memos, and see what falls out.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no way the dealer could have known his mental status. Obviously, if it were you trying to purchase a weapon, that would be a different story. You are stark raving mad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were a bunch of ways to tell his mental status.
> 
> It's the same way employers don't hire crazy people.  They ask for references-  Acquaintences, jobs, schools.
> 
> Fact was, they didn't BOTHER to find out his mental state.  The thought he was just a really big Heath Ledger fan or something.
Click to expand...


I think you are a crazy person.  You approach this issue as if you are a child and don't know any better, aren't familiar with the constitution or our rights outlined in it.  

Acquaintances, jobs and schools what exactly?  The point being, if he does NOT have a criminal record then his rights cannot be infringed upon by the government!


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> They are? There is a part in the AR-15 that will work in both the 15 and the 16, but the same part from an *AR-15 WILL NOT WORK IN A AR-15*. What is that part? And BTW it is critical to operation.



Did you mean won't work in an M16?  

I'll admit, I've never seen the inside of a civilian AR15.  I'm sure it has something to do with the sear adaptor.  I haven't taken and M16 apart in 23 years and frankly, have no desire to.  

You are avoiding the point, aren't you buddie?  Point was, except for the full auto feature, an AR15 still fires the same .223 round an M16 does, which will have the same devastating effect when it hits a human being an M16 does.  

And 82 people were killed or injured by Holmes, which you apparently think is just peachy.  Let's not hold anyone accountable for making that weapons available to him. .


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are? There is a part in the AR-15 that will work in both the 15 and the 16, but the same part from an *AR-15 WILL NOT WORK IN A AR-15*. What is that part? And BTW it is critical to operation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean won't work in an M16?
> 
> I'll admit, I've never seen the inside of a civilian AR15.  I'm sure it has something to do with the sear adaptor.  I haven't taken and M16 apart in 23 years and frankly, have no desire to.
> 
> You are avoiding the point, aren't you buddie?  Point was, except for the full auto feature, an AR15 still fires the same .223 round an M16 does, which will have the same devastating effect when it hits a human being an M16 does.
> 
> And 82 people were killed or injured by Holmes, which you apparently think is just peachy.  Let's not hold anyone accountable for making that weapons available to him. .
Click to expand...







If you had ever been an armorer you would KNOW the part immediately.  Thus you are not what you claim.  Also, there is no such thing as a "sear adaptor" where the hell do you idiots come up with these terms?

Funny how you claim to have the emotional high ground when Norway witnessed far worse carnage and guns are denied to the average person there.  Blows the crap out of your "if we ban them, gun crime won't happen meme".

The only thing that gun control has ever done is make it easier for criminals to commit crimes, and for progressive governments to murder tens of millions of people.  Those ARE the effect of gun control.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I think you are a crazy person. You approach this issue as if you are a child and don't know any better, aren't familiar with the constitution or our rights outlined in it.
> 
> Acquaintances, jobs and schools what exactly? The point being, if he does NOT have a criminal record then his rights cannot be infringed upon by the government!



Well, honey, you are the one who comes off as unbalanced, probably because you caught the school nerd in your underwear drawer once or something. 

This is a very simple issue.  We shouldn't give weapons of war to crazy people.  This is not the least bit complicated.   And even the constitution says "Well Regulated Militia".  Well, I think well-regulated means, "Guy doesn't think he's a psychotic clown from a comic book!" I'm sure there's a regulation for that.  

In fact, I had to write up a troop in my squad once because he had a hickey on his neck.  I'm sure there'd have been hell to pay if he showed up with orange hair.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen. Sure, you want the emotional touch. I can see why. You have no logical reason to send the gun dealer to jail. But the laws in this country are sorta against what your plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very logical reason-
> 
> He's part of an industry that profits off of death and misery.
> 
> Just like when they took Big Tobacco to court, and found out that they were intentionally spiking the cigarettes with nicotine and marketting them to kiddies.
> 
> I'd like to shake out the whole gun industry, all their internal memos, and see what falls out.
Click to expand...


What they got the tobacco industry on is different than what you want to get the gun industry for.

But why not go that route.   If a smoker develops lung cancer, he should be able to prosecute every convenience store clerk and send them to jail.   Every truck driver who hauled cigarettes can also be sent to prison.  And the tobacco companies can be sent up too.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> If you had ever been an armorer you would KNOW the part immediately. Thus you are not what you claim. Also, there is no such thing as a "sear adaptor" where the hell do you idiots come up with these terms?



That's what we called them.  and, yeah, I was an armorer and a supply sergeant, thanks for asking. 

Admitably, I never had your fetish for guns.  I will give you that.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are? There is a part in the AR-15 that will work in both the 15 and the 16, but the same part from an *AR-15 WILL NOT WORK IN A AR-15*. What is that part? And BTW it is critical to operation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean won't work in an M16?
> 
> I'll admit, I've never seen the inside of a civilian AR15.  I'm sure it has something to do with the sear adaptor.  I haven't taken and M16 apart in 23 years and frankly, have no desire to.
> 
> You are avoiding the point, aren't you buddie?  Point was, except for the full auto feature, an AR15 still fires the same .223 round an M16 does, which will have the same devastating effect when it hits a human being an M16 does.
> 
> And 82 people were killed or injured by Holmes, which you apparently think is just peachy.  Let's not hold anyone accountable for making that weapons available to him. .
Click to expand...


His point was to show you lied about your knowledge of the weapon.  He made his point quite well.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> What they got the tobacco industry on is different than what you want to get the gun industry for.
> 
> But why not go that route. If a smoker develops lung cancer, he should be able to prosecute every convenience store clerk and send them to jail. Every truck driver who hauled cigarettes can also be send to prison. And the tobacco companies can be sent up too.



Well, no, it's no different at all.  Other than it takes a LOT of cigarettes to kill one person.  

Let's put the gun industry under the same scrutiny the tobacco industry got.  Works for me.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> His point was to show you lied about your knowledge of the weapon. He made his point quite well.



Well, no, not really.  I've taken hundreds of them apart and put them back together again. 

A person whose been shot with an AR-15 looks JUST LIKE a person whose been shot with an M16.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen. Sure, you want the emotional touch. I can see why. You have no logical reason to send the gun dealer to jail. But the laws in this country are sorta against what your plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very logical reason-
> 
> He's part of an industry that profits off of death and misery.
> 
> Just like when they took Big Tobacco to court, and found out that they were intentionally spiking the cigarettes with nicotine and marketting them to kiddies.
> 
> I'd like to shake out the whole gun industry, all their internal memos, and see what falls out.
Click to expand...





No, I'm not.  I am an armorer however, unlike you.  In fact I have actually built several AR's for various law enforcement agencies in California and Nevada back when my friend owned a LEO supply store.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they got the tobacco industry on is different than what you want to get the gun industry for.
> 
> But why not go that route. If a smoker develops lung cancer, he should be able to prosecute every convenience store clerk and send them to jail. Every truck driver who hauled cigarettes can also be send to prison. And the tobacco companies can be sent up too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, it's no different at all.  Other than it takes a LOT of cigarettes to kill one person.
> 
> Let's put the gun industry under the same scrutiny the tobacco industry got.  Works for me.
Click to expand...


Oh, so it is about volume??   lmao

No, if you are wanting to send gun store clerks to prison, then we should send convenience store clerks, truck drivers, and the rest to prison.

And it doesn't take a LOT of cigarettes to get a person addicted.  And that makes them all criminally liable, by your standards.

And the convenience store clerk and the truck driver KNEW that cigarettes would kill people.  The gun clerk had no way of knowing the gun he sold would kill anyone.  99.99% of the legally owned guns in this country are not used to kill anyone.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a crazy person. You approach this issue as if you are a child and don't know any better, aren't familiar with the constitution or our rights outlined in it.
> 
> Acquaintances, jobs and schools what exactly? The point being, if he does NOT have a criminal record then his rights cannot be infringed upon by the government!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, honey, you are the one who comes off as unbalanced, probably because you caught the school nerd in your underwear drawer once or something.
> 
> This is a very simple issue.  We shouldn't give weapons of war to crazy people.  This is not the least bit complicated.   And even the constitution says "Well Regulated Militia".  Well, I think well-regulated means, "Guy doesn't think he's a psychotic clown from a comic book!" I'm sure there's a regulation for that.
> 
> In fact, I had to write up a troop in my squad once because he had a hickey on his neck.  I'm sure there'd have been hell to pay if he showed up with orange hair.
Click to expand...


Well regulated in the constitution means ready to fight at a moment's notice.  We have the constitutional right to bear arms.  It doesn't matter if little Joe Joe is frightened of the big bad boogey man.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had ever been an armorer you would KNOW the part immediately. Thus you are not what you claim. Also, there is no such thing as a "sear adaptor" where the hell do you idiots come up with these terms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we called them.  and, yeah, I was an armorer and a supply sergeant, thanks for asking.
> 
> Admitably, I never had your fetish for guns.  I will give you that.
Click to expand...






No, you didn't.  Parts have very specific nomenclature that ANY ARMORER, anywhere on the planet knows.  If I call up a buddy in Australia and ask if he needs a particular part he's not going to go, "uh, what do you call them over there?"  You're simply a liar.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No, I'm not. I am an armorer however, unlike you. In fact I have actually built several AR's for various law enforcement agencies in California and Nevada back when my friend owned a LEO supply store.



Whatever, guy.  

So are those 12 dead people from Aurora goign to get up and say, "Hey, it's okay. We were only shot with an AR15, and they've got some internal part that makes it different than an M16!" 

I mean, you keep dancing around the fact this guy got a military grade weapon and used it to kill or injure dozens of people.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No, you didn't. Parts have very specific nomenclature that ANY ARMORER, anywhere on the planet knows. If I call up a buddy in Australia and ask if he needs a particular part he's not going to go, "uh, what do you call them over there?" You're simply a liar.



Yawn, guy, the fact I can't remember a part nomenclature from 23 years ago proves.... I'm not a gun fetishist.  

I think it was "sear selector" I was thinking of, but I'm not going to bother to look it up because you are just deflecting at this point.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had ever been an armorer you would KNOW the part immediately. Thus you are not what you claim. Also, there is no such thing as a "sear adaptor" where the hell do you idiots come up with these terms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we called them.  and, yeah, I was an armorer and a supply sergeant, thanks for asking.
> 
> Admitably, I never had your fetish for guns.  I will give you that.
Click to expand...





And just to further show you are lying, Armorer is a different branch of the TOE from supply.  The two don't mix.  You MAY have been a supply sgt.  But you don't know shit about weapons.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Well regulated in the constitution means ready to fight at a moment's notice. We have the constitutional right to bear arms. It doesn't matter if little Joe Joe is frightened of the big bad boogey man.



Uh, no, it means, "Well-Regulated" As in, having a chain of command and rules of conduct.  

It does not mean, "any goon with orange hair can have a military grade weapon!"  

Holmes killed 12 people, including a 6 year old girl.  That's something people should be reasonably afraid of.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. I am an armorer however, unlike you. In fact I have actually built several AR's for various law enforcement agencies in California and Nevada back when my friend owned a LEO supply store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, guy.
> 
> So are those 12 dead people from Aurora goign to get up and say, "Hey, it's okay. We were only shot with an AR15, and they've got some internal part that makes it different than an M16!"
> 
> I mean, you keep dancing around the fact this guy got a military grade weapon and used it to kill or injure dozens of people.
Click to expand...






I dance around nothing.  I could have killed more people in there if took my Japanese sword in there.  It's not the weapon that's used silly boy, it's the mindset of the person.  The greatest mass murder in US history was done with a gallon of gasoline.

You wish to disarm everyone so that your government will have an easier time murdering those you don't like.  That's why the Founders made that particular feat of yours as difficult as possible.  They knew that assholes like you require people to be disarmed so you can murder them easier.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had ever been an armorer you would KNOW the part immediately. Thus you are not what you claim. Also, there is no such thing as a "sear adaptor" where the hell do you idiots come up with these terms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we called them.  and, yeah, I was an armorer and a supply sergeant, thanks for asking.
> 
> Admitably, I never had your fetish for guns.  I will give you that.
Click to expand...


Mmmm, yeah, sure you were.    I'm a brain surgeon and I say you need a lobotomy.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't. Parts have very specific nomenclature that ANY ARMORER, anywhere on the planet knows. If I call up a buddy in Australia and ask if he needs a particular part he's not going to go, "uh, what do you call them over there?" You're simply a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, the fact I can't remember a part nomenclature from 23 years ago proves.... I'm not a gun fetishist.
> 
> I think it was "sear selector" I was thinking of, but I'm not going to bother to look it up because you are just deflecting at this point.
Click to expand...






Flail away liar.  I won't tell you and I am just laughing my ass off as you dig yourself in ever deeper.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated in the constitution means ready to fight at a moment's notice. We have the constitutional right to bear arms. It doesn't matter if little Joe Joe is frightened of the big bad boogey man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, it means, "Well-Regulated" As in, having a chain of command and rules of conduct.
> 
> It does not mean, "any goon with orange hair can have a military grade weapon!"
> 
> Holmes killed 12 people, including a 6 year old girl.  That's something people should be reasonably afraid of.
Click to expand...


That is not what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.  Every knows our history here in this country.  It was every man's DUTY to have a gun and to have it ready to go when and if needed.

The founders did NOT want a centralized, federally controlled military.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> And just to further show you are lying, Armorer is a different branch of the TOE from supply. The two don't mix. You MAY have been a supply sgt. But you don't know shit about weapons.



Uh, actually, in the Army, they are both the same MOS - 76Y when i was in, but they've changed it to 92Y in the early 90's.  

Now, try to keep up.  When I was an E-3 and and E-4, I was an armorer.  When I was an e-5 and an E-6, I was a supply NCO.  

Get it? 

Yes, I actually had to get promotions in the Army.  I know it's a confusing concept for you.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Flail away liar. I won't tell you and I am just laughing my ass off as you dig yourself in ever deeper.



You're the one who just got caught confusing TOE (It's actually TO&E- Table of organization and Equipment) with MOS.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flail away liar. I won't tell you and I am just laughing my ass off as you dig yourself in ever deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who just got caught confusing TOE (It's actually TO&E- Table of organization and Equipment) with MOS.
Click to expand...






No, I'm not.  TOE is the term I wanted.  Supply is QUARTERMASTER.  Armorer is ORDNANCE.  Look up the difference some day asshat.

Below is a set of enlisted QM insignia, and below that is a set for Ordnance.  Different legs of the TOE silly boy.  Now I know you weren't even in the military.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> That is not what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Every knows our history here in this country. It was every man's DUTY to have a gun and to have it ready to go when and if needed.
> 
> The founders did NOT want a centralized, federally controlled military.



The founders where  bunch of hypocrites who wrote stuff like "All Men are Created Equal" and then went home and whipped their slaves for not producing enough wealth for them.  I think we can pretty much dismiss any speculation on what they meant about much of anything.  

The fact is, we quickly found out that their concept of a non-centralized militia didn't work.  We probably figured that out by the Civil War, but we definitely had it figured out by World War I.  It's why State Militias were replaced by a NATIONAL Guard that was held to - again- REGULATIONS put down by the army, not just show up with your squirrel gun.  

So now that we have established that whatever they thought really has no bearing on the modern world, can you please explain in what universe letting James Holmes, a mentally ill man, purchase a military grade weapon was a good idea. 

Thanks.  

Oh, that goes for the rest of the peanut gallery.  In what universe is letting Holmes by a gun of htat type a good idea?


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No, I'm not. TOE is the term I wanted. Supply is QUARTERMASTER. Armorer is ORDNANCE. Look up the difference some day asshat.




Army MOS 76Y MOSDb

Receives, inspects, inventories, loads, unloads, segregates, stores, issues, delivers and turns-in organization and installation supplies and equipment; operates unit level computer (ULC); prepares all unit/organizational supply documents; maintains automated supply system for accounting of organizational and installation supplies and equipment; *issues and receives small arms; secures and controls weapons and ammunition in security areas; schedules and performs preventive and organizational maintenance on weapons; *inspects completed work for accuracy and compliance with established procedures; coordinates supply activities; reviews and annotates changes to unit material condition status report; post transactions to organizational and installation property books and supporting transaction files; determines method of obtaining relief from responsibility for lost, damaged and destroyed supply items; directs supply personnel in establishing supply and inventory control management functions; maintains property under standard property book system (SPBS); reviews daily and monthly records of issues of petroleum products and operating supplies; provides technical assistance to equipment records and parts specialist; assists and advises supply officer and commander.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Below is a set of enlisted QM insignia, and below that is a set for Ordnance. Different legs of the TOE silly boy. Now I know you weren't even in the military.



Uh, guy, as i pointed out above, at the UNIT level, Armorers are 76Y- Quartermasters.  NOT Ordnance corps.

Well, 92Y now, but never mind. 

So how does any of this make letting Joker Holmes have an AR-15 a good idea?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Every knows our history here in this country. It was every man's DUTY to have a gun and to have it ready to go when and if needed.
> 
> The founders did NOT want a centralized, federally controlled military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders where  bunch of hypocrites who wrote stuff like "All Men are Created Equal" and then went home and whipped their slaves for not producing enough wealth for them.  I think we can pretty much dismiss any speculation on what they meant about much of anything.
> 
> The fact is, we quickly found out that their concept of a non-centralized militia didn't work.  We probably figured that out by the Civil War, but we definitely had it figured out by World War I.  It's why State Militias were replaced by a NATIONAL Guard that was held to - again- REGULATIONS put down by the army, not just show up with your squirrel gun.
> 
> So now that we have established that whatever they thought really has no bearing on the modern world, can you please explain in what universe letting James Holmes, a mentally ill man, purchase a military grade weapon was a good idea.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Oh, that goes for the rest of the peanut gallery.  In what universe is letting Holmes by a gun of htat type a good idea?
Click to expand...


If the mental health professionals had done their job, he wouldn't have been able to buy it from a gun dealer.  But you don't have a problem with them, do you?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Every knows our history here in this country. It was every man's DUTY to have a gun and to have it ready to go when and if needed.
> 
> The founders did NOT want a centralized, federally controlled military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders where  bunch of hypocrites who wrote stuff like "All Men are Created Equal" and then went home and whipped their slaves for not producing enough wealth for them.  I think we can pretty much dismiss any speculation on what they meant about much of anything.
> 
> The fact is, we quickly found out that their concept of a non-centralized militia didn't work.  We probably figured that out by the Civil War, but we definitely had it figured out by World War I.  It's why State Militias were replaced by a NATIONAL Guard that was held to - again- REGULATIONS put down by the army, not just show up with your squirrel gun.
> 
> So now that we have established that whatever they thought really has no bearing on the modern world, can you please explain in what universe letting James Holmes, a mentally ill man, purchase a military grade weapon was a good idea.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Oh, that goes for the rest of the peanut gallery.  In what universe is letting Holmes by a gun of htat type a good idea?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter.  We still have the rights that are written in the constitution.  It doesn't matter if you are paranoid.  It's because of people like you why we have an NRA and other organizations to protect our 2nd amendment rights because once you give the government permission to screw around with one right, then there is really not much stopping them from messing with others.  A few lunatics is not a good enough reason to revoke any of our rights.  Sorry.  Buck up and deal with your paranoia, especially since your risks of drowning in a backyard pool are much greater than they are of being shot.  And if you don't like guns and if you are afraid of them, that's fine.  Then don't own one, but you have some nerve trying to tell other people that they cannot.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. TOE is the term I wanted. Supply is QUARTERMASTER. Armorer is ORDNANCE. Look up the difference some day asshat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army MOS 76Y MOSDb
> 
> Receives, inspects, inventories, loads, unloads, segregates, stores, issues, delivers and turns-in organization and installation supplies and equipment; operates unit level computer (ULC); prepares all unit/organizational supply documents; maintains automated supply system for accounting of organizational and installation supplies and equipment; *issues and receives small arms; secures and controls weapons and ammunition in security areas; schedules and performs preventive and organizational maintenance on weapons; *inspects completed work for accuracy and compliance with established procedures; coordinates supply activities; reviews and annotates changes to unit material condition status report; post transactions to organizational and installation property books and supporting transaction files; determines method of obtaining relief from responsibility for lost, damaged and destroyed supply items; directs supply personnel in establishing supply and inventory control management functions; maintains property under standard property book system (SPBS); reviews daily and monthly records of issues of petroleum products and operating supplies; provides technical assistance to equipment records and parts specialist; assists and advises supply officer and commander.
Click to expand...








MAINTENANCE.  Armorers do deep level repairs up to an including complete rebuilds of the weapons..  Supply CLEANS them.  See the dif?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> If the mental health professionals had done their job, he wouldn't have been able to buy it from a gun dealer. But you don't have a problem with them, do you?



Well, first, we really don't know what his mental health providers knew... but they weren't the ones who gave him a gun.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> MAINTENANCE. Armorers do deep level repairs up to an including complete rebuilds of the weapons.. Supply CLEANS them. See the dif?



Actually, 99% of the maintenance that is done was done at the company level.  I think I only had to have an M-16 sent out for "rebuild' once in six years. (Some ROTC cadet we were training with dropped his out of a vehicle and ran it over with a jeep.) 

Incidentally, individual SOLDIERS clean their weapons, not supply.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> MAINTENANCE. Armorers do deep level repairs up to an including complete rebuilds of the weapons.. Supply CLEANS them. See the dif?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, 99% of the maintenance that is done was done at the company level.  I think I only had to have an M-16 sent out for "rebuild' once in six years. (Some ROTC cadet we were training with dropped his out of a vehicle and ran it over with a jeep.)
> 
> Incidentally, individual SOLDIERS clean their weapons, not supply.
Click to expand...






Every soldier cleans their weapons.  Supply, when they receive them back into the supply room, then does their own inspection where they do a standard field strip and clean to ensure the weapon is returned the way it was released.  They do NO ARMORER work.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> It doesn't matter. We still have the rights that are written in the constitution. It doesn't matter if you are paranoid. It's because of people like you why we have an NRA and other organizations to protect our 2nd amendment rights because once you give the government permission to screw around with one right, then there is really not much stopping them from messing with others.



The NRA used to support common sense gun control. For instance, when the Black Panthers started practicing "Open Carry" in the 1960's, the NRA helped draft laws against that and Republican Governors like that flaming liberal Ronald Reagan signed off on them.  It was only after the Gun Industry co-opted the NRA in the 1970's did we start getting the healthy doses of crazy you and your friends subscribe to.  



ChrisL said:


> A few lunatics is not a good enough reason to revoke any of our rights. Sorry. Buck up and deal with your paranoia, especially since your risks of drowning in a backyard pool are much greater than they are of being shot. And if you don't like guns and if you are afraid of them, that's fine. Then don't own one, but you have some nerve trying to tell other people that they cannot.



A backyard pool is not going to go to a place where people who had no intention of swimming are and drown them.  

We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.  Yeah, maybe guys like Joker Holmes are only responsible for a small percentage of them, but that just tells me we have too many other kinds of gun deaths.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mental health professionals had done their job, he wouldn't have been able to buy it from a gun dealer. But you don't have a problem with them, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, we really don't know what his mental health providers knew... but they weren't the ones who gave him a gun.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you claim the store clerk had to have known he was crazy, but the mental health professionals.....well....we don't know what they knew.

And you have said over and over that "everyone in Holmes' life knew he was crazy".    But the mental health professionals, the ones who are trained to diagnose and see mental illness......well.......we don't know what they knew.

It only took the news media one day to find out Holmes was batshit crazy.    But the mental health professionals.......well.....we don't know what they knew.


Your lying and hypocrisy knows no bounds, JoeyB.   lmao


And no, the mental health professionals didn't sell him the gun.  But by their inaction, the allowed him to buy it.  One single, and simple action on their part could have prevented it.   You want the store clerk held responsible for knowing Holmes' mental state, but don't think the mental health professionals should be.   lmao   Too ridiculous.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. We still have the rights that are written in the constitution. It doesn't matter if you are paranoid. It's because of people like you why we have an NRA and other organizations to protect our 2nd amendment rights because once you give the government permission to screw around with one right, then there is really not much stopping them from messing with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA used to support common sense gun control. For instance, when the Black Panthers started practicing "Open Carry" in the 1960's, the NRA helped draft laws against that and Republican Governors like that flaming liberal Ronald Reagan signed off on them.  It was only after the Gun Industry co-opted the NRA in the 1970's did we start getting the healthy doses of crazy you and your friends subscribe to.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few lunatics is not a good enough reason to revoke any of our rights. Sorry. Buck up and deal with your paranoia, especially since your risks of drowning in a backyard pool are much greater than they are of being shot. And if you don't like guns and if you are afraid of them, that's fine. Then don't own one, but you have some nerve trying to tell other people that they cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A backyard pool is not going to go to a place where people who had no intention of swimming are and drown them.
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.  Yeah, maybe guys like Joker Holmes are only responsible for a small percentage of them, but that just tells me we have too many other kinds of gun deaths.
Click to expand...


Oh yes they are.  Little children drown in pools every single year.  Many more than any that are shot.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. We still have the rights that are written in the constitution. It doesn't matter if you are paranoid. It's because of people like you why we have an NRA and other organizations to protect our 2nd amendment rights because once you give the government permission to screw around with one right, then there is really not much stopping them from messing with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA used to support common sense gun control. For instance, when the Black Panthers started practicing "Open Carry" in the 1960's, the NRA helped draft laws against that and Republican Governors like that flaming liberal Ronald Reagan signed off on them.  It was only after the Gun Industry co-opted the NRA in the 1970's did we start getting the healthy doses of crazy you and your friends subscribe to.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few lunatics is not a good enough reason to revoke any of our rights. Sorry. Buck up and deal with your paranoia, especially since your risks of drowning in a backyard pool are much greater than they are of being shot. And if you don't like guns and if you are afraid of them, that's fine. Then don't own one, but you have some nerve trying to tell other people that they cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A backyard pool is not going to go to a place where people who had no intention of swimming are and drown them.
> 
> *We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. * Yeah, maybe guys like Joker Holmes are only responsible for a small percentage of them, but that just tells me we have too many other kinds of gun deaths.
Click to expand...


Of that 32,000 gun deaths, at least 21,000 are suicides.   I find it amusing that you think someone will only commit suicide with a gun.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Every soldier cleans their weapons. Supply, when they receive them back into the supply room,



Well, we didn't put them in a "supply room', we'd put them in a vault. 



westwall said:


> then does their own inspection where they do a standard field strip and clean to ensure the weapon is returned the way it was released. They do NO ARMORER work



Except that on the TO&E, the 76Y position was called "Armorer", not "Guy who puts the guns in the supply room".  Maybe they were just trying to save Ink. 

NOw, how does any of this make letting James Holmes buy an AR15 a good idea again?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Oh yes they are. Little children drown in pools every single year. Many more than any that are shot.



But the pools aren't showing up at the theatre and drowning people.  That's the point.  

Now, I can take precautions against the kids drowning in a pool. Make sure they have adult supervision, make sure they know how to swim, etc.  

I really don't have a precaution against a guy like Joker Holmes. Not even having a gun of my own, because the "Good guy with a gun" almost never happens.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are. Little children drown in pools every single year. Many more than any that are shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the pools aren't showing up at the theatre and drowning people.  That's the point.
> 
> Now, I can take precautions against the kids drowning in a pool. Make sure they have adult supervision, make sure they know how to swim, etc.
> 
> I really don't have a precaution against a guy like Joker Holmes. Not even having a gun of my own, because the "Good guy with a gun" almost never happens.
Click to expand...


Well, that's your problem if you choose not to own a gun.  THAT is one reason why some people would choose to carry a weapon on them, and who are you to try and prevent others from defending themselves and/or their families?  As Dr. Kleck's study, as well as the newest study by the Obama administration and the CDC says, there are many more DGU than gun crimes.  So that must mean you WANT to create more victims and leave people as sitting ducks for the criminals to prey upon them.  Because no laws are going to prevent a madman from getting his hands on a gun if he really wants one.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Well, that's your problem if you choose not to own a gun. THAT is one reason why some people would choose to carry a weapon on them, and who are you to try and prevent others from defending themselves and/or their families?



Okay, then how come those people never stop mass shootings, then?  



ChrisL said:


> As Dr. Kleck's study,



Kleck has been debunked. 



ChrisL said:


> as well as the newest study by the Obama administration and the CDC says, there are many more DGU than gun crimes.



Well, no, they don't.  First, all that study did was say, "There are a bunch of studies, and they put the number between 65K  and 3M."   Which means, most of the studies are worthless.  

If you accept the low end, 65K, then there ARE more gun crimes - 32,000 deaths, 78,000 injuries and 300,000 other gun crimes. 

But here's why I don't buy the DGU claims- the lack of dead bobies on the floor.  The FBI says that there were only 201 justifiable gun homicides by civilians a year. 

That would mean guns are drawn 325 times, but only produce one dead crook?  That sounds kind of incredible.  it goes up to 10,000 for every dead crook if you accept Kleck's fanciful numbers.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> So that must mean you WANT to create more victims and leave people as sitting ducks for the criminals to prey upon them. Because no laws are going to prevent a madman from getting his hands on a gun if he really wants one.



then please explain to me why they have so very few of these kinds of instances in DEMOCRACIES like Japan, Germany, France, England.  

It seems to me that if Madmen can't go into a store and buy a gun, they can't get their hands on them.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's your problem if you choose not to own a gun. THAT is one reason why some people would choose to carry a weapon on them, and who are you to try and prevent others from defending themselves and/or their families?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then how come those people never stop mass shootings, then?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Dr. Kleck's study,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kleck has been debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> as well as the newest study by the Obama administration and the CDC says, there are many more DGU than gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they don't.  First, all that study did was say, "There are a bunch of studies, and they put the number between 65K  and 3M."   Which means, most of the studies are worthless.
> 
> If you accept the low end, 65K, then there ARE more gun crimes - 32,000 deaths, 78,000 injuries and 300,000 other gun crimes.
> 
> But here's why I don't buy the DGU claims- the lack of dead bobies on the floor.  The FBI says that there were only 201 justifiable gun homicides by civilians a year.
> 
> That would mean guns are drawn 325 times, but only produce one dead crook?  That sounds kind of incredible.  it goes up to 10,000 for every dead crook if you accept Kleck's fanciful numbers.
Click to expand...


No, Kleck has not been debunked.  His work was used in the study funded by the Obama administration.  Stop lying.  Just because some of you anti-rights people don't want to believe the results, does not mean they have been debunked because they have not.  

CDC Study Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is Important Crime Deterrent 

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

The White House unveiled a plan in January that included orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.”

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States.”





(AP Photo)

African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths. Risk factors and predictors of violence include income inequality, “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.”

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed  “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that must mean you WANT to create more victims and leave people as sitting ducks for the criminals to prey upon them. Because no laws are going to prevent a madman from getting his hands on a gun if he really wants one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then please explain to me why they have so very few of these kinds of instances in DEMOCRACIES like Japan, Germany, France, England.
> 
> It seems to me that if Madmen can't go into a store and buy a gun, they can't get their hands on them.
Click to expand...


They are not America.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that must mean you WANT to create more victims and leave people as sitting ducks for the criminals to prey upon them. Because no laws are going to prevent a madman from getting his hands on a gun if he really wants one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then please explain to me why they have so very few of these kinds of instances in DEMOCRACIES like Japan, Germany, France, England.
> 
> It seems to me that if Madmen can't go into a store and buy a gun, they can't get their hands on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not America.
Click to expand...


And Japan has far more suicides than the US, despite having few guns.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, then how come those people never stop mass shootings, then?



Hmm, well, let's think about that.  Maybe due to the fact that MOST mass shootings happen in "gun free zones."  Another great idea and law that some nitwit came up with that does not work and, in fact, pretty much makes those places targets for mass shootings.  Of course, they know there is no one there that can stop them!


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. TOE is the term I wanted. Supply is QUARTERMASTER. Armorer is ORDNANCE. Look up the difference some day asshat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army MOS 76Y MOSDb
> 
> Receives, inspects, inventories, loads, unloads, segregates, stores, issues, delivers and turns-in organization and installation supplies and equipment; operates unit level computer (ULC); prepares all unit/organizational supply documents; maintains automated supply system for accounting of organizational and installation supplies and equipment; *issues and receives small arms; secures and controls weapons and ammunition in security areas; schedules and performs preventive and organizational maintenance on weapons; *inspects completed work for accuracy and compliance with established procedures; coordinates supply activities; reviews and annotates changes to unit material condition status report; post transactions to organizational and installation property books and supporting transaction files; determines method of obtaining relief from responsibility for lost, damaged and destroyed supply items; directs supply personnel in establishing supply and inventory control management functions; maintains property under standard property book system (SPBS); reviews daily and monthly records of issues of petroleum products and operating supplies; provides technical assistance to equipment records and parts specialist; assists and advises supply officer and commander.
Click to expand...






Oh, lookey here.  The Armorer MOS is 91F
*
Performs field and sustainment level maintenance and repairs on small arms and other infantry weapons and towed artillery.*

Army MOS 91F MOSDb


----------



## ChrisL

I think Joe believes that gun owners are riding around in their vehicles going "yeeee-haw, and shooting their guns out their windows.


JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mental health professionals had done their job, he wouldn't have been able to buy it from a gun dealer. But you don't have a problem with them, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, we really don't know what his mental health providers knew... but they weren't the ones who gave him a gun.
Click to expand...


And gun sellers are NOT psychiatrists and are not allowed to make a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder, you dumb arse.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> There were a bunch of ways to tell his mental status.
> It's the same way employers don't hire crazy people.  They ask for references-  Acquaintences, jobs, schools.
> 
> Fact was, they didn't BOTHER to find out his mental state.  The thought he was just a really big Heath Ledger fan or something.



They could not know what he looked like.  He purchased the items online from a web site.  Please tell me how an online seller can discern if a purchaser who clicks a button on a the seller's website to purchase an item can discern whether the buyer is a nut case?  Perhaps by the way he clicks his mouse or sumpin?


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, that's what we had.  You are proving my point.  the AR-15 was a military weapon desgined for the military.



Incorrect.  The M-16 is a military weapon and designed for the military.  The makers of the M-16 then modified it from its military design so as to be suitable for civilian use. The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon because it is incapable of fully automatic fire or burst fire.  No modern military force in the world employs them as their main battle rifle for specifically that reason.  It is a civilian weapon based upon a design which was specifically modified from its military origins.  Much like a Jeep Cherokee is not a military grade vehicle.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it makes it plainly frivolous and subject to sanctions as there was no reason for the online seller to suspect anything was amiss. It was also going against significant legal precedent against them. The Brady Campaign was the primary mover of this lawsuit and I hope the judge makes them pay the lawyer fees rather than the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Gun Industry was acting responsibly, you might have a point.
> 
> It doesn't.  It's goal is to put as many guns out there to scare everyone else into wanting them.
> 
> And much like we needed lawsuits to finally put the Tobacco Industry into its place, we need to do the same to the gun industry.  A few multi-million dollar judgements will do nicely.
Click to expand...


The gun industry is acting responsibly, you just have a hatred for guns.  Guns are different from tobacco for two reasons:

1.) Tobacco when used legally and in the manner intended still causes death. 
2.) The right of the people to have and smoke tobacco is not found in the bill of rights.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, they didn't.
> .



Uh, yes they did. it just that the militia amendment did not make the final cut.  The individual right to have and use arms for private purposes did make the final cut, much to your chagrin.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No, Kleck has not been debunked.



Yes, he has. Thoroughly.  Get your head out of your ass and actually read something other than NRA gun Fetish websites.. 



ChrisL said:


> They are not America.



No, they aren't. They aren't inhabited by bible thumping rednecks who keep voting against their own economic interests.  They actually realize that you avoid mass murder by NOT LETTING CRAZY PEOPLE HAVE GUNS.  It's an amazing context.  

They also have some silly idea about not letting people starve, and they don't have anywhere near the crime rates we have.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Hmm, well, let's think about that. Maybe due to the fact that MOST mass shootings happen in "gun free zones." Another great idea and law that some nitwit came up with that does not work and, in fact, pretty much makes those places targets for mass shootings. Of course, they know there is no one there that can stop them!



Well, no, they really don't.  Tuscon wasn't a "gun free zone".  Loughner was still able to shoot six people to death.  Your "Good guy with a gun" damn near shot the person who disarmed him.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> Uh, yes they did. it just that the militia amendment did not make the final cut. The individual right to have and use arms for private purposes did make the final cut, much to your chagrin.



Yeah, again, these were the same racist assholes who talked smack about "All Men are created equal" and then built a country based on racism and genocide.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Oh, lookey here.  The Armorer MOS is 91F
> *
> Performs field and sustainment level maintenance and repairs on small arms and other infantry weapons and towed artillery.*
> 
> Army MOS 91F MOSDb



Yes, you would need a SPECIALIZED MOS to work on artillery.  

Most units, they get buy with an 92Y.  (which was 76Y when I was in.)  And here was the beauty of being 76Y.  Every unit in the army needed them.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I think Joe believes that gun owners are riding around in their vehicles going "yeeee-haw, and shooting their guns out their windows.



ANd they fly a Confederate Flag and talk about Jesus a lot.  

Then their stupid, inbred asses wonder why the good jobs are going to China, but they  done gots them a gun and a bible.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> They could not know what he looked like. He purchased the items online from a web site. Please tell me how an online seller can discern if a purchaser who clicks a button on a the seller's website to purchase an item can discern whether the buyer is a nut case? Perhaps by the way he clicks his mouse or sumpin?



WHy are we letting ANYONE buy guns on line.  That's like fucking insane. 



legaleagle_45 said:


> The right of the people to have and smoke tobacco is not found in the bill of rights.



Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could not know what he looked like. He purchased the items online from a web site. Please tell me how an online seller can discern if a purchaser who clicks a button on a the seller's website to purchase an item can discern whether the buyer is a nut case? Perhaps by the way he clicks his mouse or sumpin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy are we letting ANYONE buy guns on line.  That's like fucking insane.
> 
> 
> 
> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to have and smoke tobacco is not found in the bill of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.
Click to expand...

Hey moron, buying a gun online means you pay the on line dealer with a Credit card-he ships the gun to a LICENSED DEALER IN YOUR HOME STATE and you go to that LICENSED DEALER AND THE DEALER runs a background check on you

stupid asshole


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Hey moron, buying a gun online means you pay the on line dealer with a Credit card-he ships the gun to a LICENSED DEALER IN YOUR HOME STATE and you go to that LICENSED DEALER AND THE DEALER runs a background check on you
> 
> stupid asshole



And again, that worked really well with Holmes, didn't it?  I mean, he turned out to be a total Poster Boy for the NRA, didn't he.  I hear he's going to be on the cover of next month's _Guns and Ammo_, no doubt in his full Joker Regalia.


----------



## turtledude

You are turning out to be a poster boy for the mentally deficient.  Tell us Joeb what causes your hatred for gun ownership?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, buying a gun online means you pay the on line dealer with a Credit card-he ships the gun to a LICENSED DEALER IN YOUR HOME STATE and you go to that LICENSED DEALER AND THE DEALER runs a background check on you
> 
> stupid asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, that worked really well with Holmes, didn't it?  I mean, he turned out to be a total Poster Boy for the NRA, didn't he.  I hear he's going to be on the cover of next month's _Guns and Ammo_, no doubt in his full Joker Regalia.
Click to expand...


Actually, if your paranoid delusions were accurate, you would be the poster boy for the NRA.   If people though there was a snowball's chance in hell of you getting your wish, they would stockpile even more.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> You are turning out to be a poster boy for the mentally deficient.  Tell us Joeb what causes your hatred for gun ownership?



32,000 gun deaths. 
78,000 gun injuries.

The fact that you gun nuts inflicted George W. Bush on this country.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Actually, if your paranoid delusions were accurate, you would be the poster boy for the NRA. If people though there was a snowball's chance in hell of you getting your wish, they would stockpile even more.



Wasting their money on something the government is going to confiscate?


----------



## JohnA

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could not know what he looked like. He purchased the items online from a web site. Please tell me how an online seller can discern if a purchaser who clicks a button on a the seller's website to purchase an item can discern whether the buyer is a nut case? Perhaps by the way he clicks his mouse or sumpin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy are we letting ANYONE buy guns on line.  That's like fucking insane.
> 
> 
> 
> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to have and smoke tobacco is not found in the bill of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.
Click to expand...


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are turning out to be a poster boy for the mentally deficient.  Tell us Joeb what causes your hatred for gun ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths.
> 78,000 gun injuries.
> 
> The fact that you gun nuts inflicted George W. Bush on this country.
Click to expand...


it took a little prodding but JoeB-Al Gore Fluffer comes clean

he hates the NRA and gun owners because we supported BUSH and AL GORE LOST HIS OWN STATE and the election as a result/  we know that crime control is only a facade doubhebags like you use to bash guns when in reality its butt hurt whining over politics


----------



## JohnA

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could not know what he looked like. He purchased the items online from a web site. Please tell me how an online seller can discern if a purchaser who clicks a button on a the seller's website to purchase an item can discern whether the buyer is a nut case? Perhaps by the way he clicks his mouse or sumpin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy are we letting ANYONE buy guns on line.  That's like fucking insane.
> 
> 
> 
> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to have and smoke tobacco is not found in the bill of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.
Click to expand...


----------



## JohnA

they smoke cus there is no law that says they cant  same as military style guns .

old rule.
  if the law  does not say you cant, you can


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are turning out to be a poster boy for the mentally deficient.  Tell us Joeb what causes your hatred for gun ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths.
> 78,000 gun injuries.
> 
> The fact that you gun nuts inflicted George W. Bush on this country.
Click to expand...


Less than 11,000 gun murders and a bit over 21,000 suicides.  If someone wants to die they will die.  You are so fond of using Japan as an example of fewer gun deaths, look at their suicide rates.  They are exponentially higher than ours.  And they do that without guns.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if your paranoid delusions were accurate, you would be the poster boy for the NRA. If people though there was a snowball's chance in hell of you getting your wish, they would stockpile even more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasting their money on something the government is going to confiscate?
Click to expand...


Really?   You actually believe that?   Please point out any place in the US where the gun laws have gotten significantly stricter?


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> it took a little prodding but JoeB-Al Gore Fluffer comes clean
> 
> he hates the NRA and gun owners because we supported BUSH and AL GORE LOST HIS OWN STATE and the election as a result/ we know that crime control is only a facade doubhebags like you use to bash guns when in reality its butt hurt whining over politics



Uh, given what an absolute fuck up Bush was, the people responsible for putting him in office deserve to pay a price.  

The gun nuts have hijacked this debate. We need to take it back from them.  Most AMericans support common sense gun control.   Heck, even most NRA members support common sense gun control.  

I'm still waiting for you or one of the other members of the peanut gallery to tell me why Holmes having a machine gun was a good idea other than mewling about "founding fathers" and what their intent was.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Less than 11,000 gun murders and a bit over 21,000 suicides. If someone wants to die they will die. You are so fond of using Japan as an example of fewer gun deaths, look at their suicide rates. They are exponentially higher than ours. And they do that without guns.



Again, Japanese don't consider suicide a sin. Americans do.  

Tell you what, after we ban guns, and the suicide rate doesn't go down, I will apologize for THAT part of it.  But the lower murder rates and lower crime rates will still be pretty sweet.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Really? You actually believe that? Please point out any place in the US where the gun laws have gotten significantly stricter?



They have in New York, they have in Oregon.  

It's only a matter of time before there's a gun slaughter that so shocks the sensibilities that we put an end to this.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> it took a little prodding but JoeB-Al Gore Fluffer comes clean
> 
> he hates the NRA and gun owners because we supported BUSH and AL GORE LOST HIS OWN STATE and the election as a result/ we know that crime control is only a facade doubhebags like you use to bash guns when in reality its butt hurt whining over politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, given what an absolute fuck up Bush was, the people responsible for putting him in office deserve to pay a price.
> 
> The gun nuts have hijacked this debate. We need to take it back from them.  Most AMericans support common sense gun control.   Heck, even most NRA members support common sense gun control.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you or one of the other members of the peanut gallery to tell me why Holmes having a machine gun was a good idea other than mewling about "founding fathers" and what their intent was.
Click to expand...


The reason no one is telling you why Holmes having a machine gun was a good idea is simple.    Holmes didn't have a machine gun.  

And when your own stance is that gun dealers should go to prison after following all the rules, and when you expect store clerks to be able to diagnose mental illness, and when you don't expect mental health professionals to diagnose mental illness, the whole "common sense" angle sounds ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You actually believe that? Please point out any place in the US where the gun laws have gotten significantly stricter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have in New York, they have in Oregon.
> 
> It's only a matter of time before there's a gun slaughter that so shocks the sensibilities that we put an end to this.
Click to expand...


Minor regulations, at best.  Certainly not wholesale banning and confiscation of firearms, as you claim will happen.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 11,000 gun murders and a bit over 21,000 suicides. If someone wants to die they will die. You are so fond of using Japan as an example of fewer gun deaths, look at their suicide rates. They are exponentially higher than ours. And they do that without guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Japanese don't consider suicide a sin. Americans do.
> 
> Tell you what, after we ban guns, and the suicide rate doesn't go down, I will apologize for THAT part of it.  But the lower murder rates and lower crime rates will still be pretty sweet.
Click to expand...


So, once again, you defend the hole in your logic by blaming it on cultural differences.   But you don't allow cultural differences to explain anything else?    Hypocrisy, thy name is JoeyB.

And no, we are not going to ban guns.   I am all for boosting mental health facilities.  I am all for the VA doing more for veterans.  But I am not giving up my constitutionally guaranteed right because of the actions of 0.001% of the gun owners.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> it took a little prodding but JoeB-Al Gore Fluffer comes clean
> 
> he hates the NRA and gun owners because we supported BUSH and AL GORE LOST HIS OWN STATE and the election as a result/ we know that crime control is only a facade doubhebags like you use to bash guns when in reality its butt hurt whining over politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, given what an absolute fuck up Bush was, the people responsible for putting him in office deserve to pay a price.
> 
> The gun nuts have hijacked this debate. We need to take it back from them.  Most AMericans support common sense gun control.   Heck, even most NRA members support common sense gun control.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you or one of the other members of the peanut gallery to tell me why Holmes having a machine gun was a good idea other than mewling about "founding fathers" and what their intent was.
Click to expand...


yeah behind every gun banner is a Democrat Party Fluffer 

you  have no common sense when it comes to guns   You are on record saying no citizen should own a gun.  

and Holmes didn't have a machine gun you lying piece of shit


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The reason no one is telling you why Holmes having a machine gun was a good idea is simple. Holmes didn't have a machine gun.



Okay, frankly, if you want to keep redefining things, let's call it a pop gun.  So why was it a good idea for Holmes to have a military grade pop gun that fired a hundred rounds allowing him to kill or injure nearly 100 people.  

Thanks.  



WinterBorn said:


> And no, we are not going to ban guns. I am all for boosting mental health facilities. I am all for the VA doing more for veterans. But I am not giving up my constitutionally guaranteed right because of the actions of 0.001% of the gun owners.



Yes, you are perfectly willing to let children die so you can compensate fora  tiny dick. got it.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> yeah behind every gun banner is a Democrat Party Fluffer



I was a right wing republican until Bush fucked up the country.  Now i know better.  Unfortunately, we aren't going to get rid of people like the Bush family until we get rid of the people who support them for stupid reason. That means the religious nuts, the gun nuts and the libertarian nuts.  



turtledude said:


> you have no common sense when it comes to guns You are on record saying no citizen should own a gun.



You have yet to give me a "good" reason why a civilian should own a gun. but that aside, there's always room for comprimise. 

No one should own a military grade weapon.
No one should have a clip that has more than 10 rounds.  If you can't hit your target at ten rounds, you shouldn't be shooting.
No civilian should own armor piercing bullets. 
Guns should only be sold by licensed dealers, after thorough background checks.
When they sell a gun to the wrong person, they should be held criminally responsible. 
Doctors should be able to warn families of the dangers of guns in the home. 

These are all things you gun fetishists opposed.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason no one is telling you why Holmes having a machine gun was a good idea is simple. Holmes didn't have a machine gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, frankly, if you want to keep redefining things, let's call it a pop gun.  So why was it a good idea for Holmes to have a military grade pop gun that fired a hundred rounds allowing him to kill or injure nearly 100 people.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, we are not going to ban guns. I am all for boosting mental health facilities. I am all for the VA doing more for veterans. But I am not giving up my constitutionally guaranteed right because of the actions of 0.001% of the gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are perfectly willing to let children die so you can compensate fora  tiny dick. got it.
Click to expand...


We are not redefining anything.  The AR does not fit the definition of a machine gun.  If you were as knowledgeable as you claimed you would know that.   Your sensationalistic nonsense does not pass.

I am not killing children.   99.99% of the legal gun owners are not killing children.  So no, I am not willing to give up my rights based on the tiny percentage of people who do.


----------



## WinterBorn

Drug overdoes kill more people than are murdered with guns.   Maybe you should ban those drugs?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah behind every gun banner is a Democrat Party Fluffer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a right wing republican until Bush fucked up the country.  Now i know better.  Unfortunately, we aren't going to get rid of people like the Bush family until we get rid of the people who support them for stupid reason. That means the religious nuts, the gun nuts and the libertarian nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no common sense when it comes to guns You are on record saying no citizen should own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to give me a "good" reason why a civilian should own a gun. but that aside, there's always room for comprimise.
> 
> No one should own a military grade weapon.
> No one should have a clip that has more than 10 rounds.  If you can't hit your target at ten rounds, you shouldn't be shooting.
> No civilian should own armor piercing bullets.
> Guns should only be sold by licensed dealers, after thorough background checks.
> When they sell a gun to the wrong person, they should be held criminally responsible.
> Doctors should be able to warn families of the dangers of guns in the home.
> 
> These are all things you gun fetishists opposed.
Click to expand...


I have given you good reasons for owning guns numerous times.  You choose to ignore them.

Self defense is a very good reason for owning a gun.

Hunting is an excellent reason for owning a gun.

Target shooting is a good reason for owning a gun.

Vermin control is a good reason for owning a gun.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> We are not redefining anything. The AR does not fit the definition of a machine gun. If you were as knowledgeable as you claimed you would know that. Your sensationalistic nonsense does not pass.
> 
> I am not killing children. 99.99% of the legal gun owners are not killing children. So no, I am not willing to give up my rights based on the tiny percentage of people who do.



You've created  a system where Holmes could buy a gun.  The fact this sort of thing is STILL going on 16 years after Coumbine is insane.


----------



## prison/con.net

the best reason of all to own a gun is to upset the wannabe Hitler/sheep who dont like for anyone to be able to resist their dictation of how everyone else "should" live.  Any of these mass shooters COULD have used explosives or poison to do MORE harm (and get away with it). When they use a gun, they are quickly caught or killed


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not redefining anything. The AR does not fit the definition of a machine gun. If you were as knowledgeable as you claimed you would know that. Your sensationalistic nonsense does not pass.
> 
> I am not killing children. 99.99% of the legal gun owners are not killing children. So no, I am not willing to give up my rights based on the tiny percentage of people who do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've created  a system where Holmes could buy a gun.  The fact this sort of thing is STILL going on 16 years after Coumbine is insane.
Click to expand...


We also created a system in which the mentally unstable are reported to a database, thereby stopping them from buying a firearm.

Holmes also made pipe bombs.   Ban the sales of pipe.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.



The right to own military grade machine guns is tightly controlled by the NFA of 1934


----------



## JoeB131

prison/con.net said:


> the best reason of all to own a gun is to upset the wannabe Hitler/sheep who dont like for anyone to be able to resist their dictation of how everyone else "should" live. Any of these mass shooters COULD have used explosives or poison to do MORE harm (and get away with it). When they use a gun, they are quickly caught or killed



except sales of explosives are regulated now. Even sales of fertilizers are regulated now. 

Which is why you haven't had a mass explosion death sine OKC.  And after some other assholes used planes to do mass murder, we tightened up the security on planes.  

And that's the point.  The Airlines went along with tightened security after fighting it for years because AFTER 9/11, they ended up paying out billions in wrongful death and injury suits.  

The thing is, the gun industry COULD tighten background checks on their own. They just don't want to, because they know if criminals and crazy people can't get guns, people like some of the posters on this thread won't be pissing themselves and wanting more guns, too.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to own military grade machine guns is tightly controlled by the NFA of 1934
Click to expand...


And yet Joker Holmes was still able to buy one.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if your paranoid delusions were accurate, you would be the poster boy for the NRA. If people though there was a snowball's chance in hell of you getting your wish, they would stockpile even more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasting their money on something the government is going to confiscate?
Click to expand...


JoeB131's real name must be "Nobody" because I am always told that Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> have given you good reasons for owning guns numerous times. You choose to ignore them.
> 
> Self defense is a very good reason for owning a gun.
> 
> Hunting is an excellent reason for owning a gun.
> 
> Target shooting is a good reason for owning a gun.
> 
> Vermin control is a good reason for owning a gun.



self defense never happens, and the guns that the Joker got don't fit into any of those other categories.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to own military grade machine guns is tightly controlled by the NFA of 1934
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet Joker Holmes was still able to buy one.
Click to expand...

Joker Holmes did not buy a military grade machine gun


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if your paranoid delusions were accurate, you would be the poster boy for the NRA. If people though there was a snowball's chance in hell of you getting your wish, they would stockpile even more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasting their money on something the government is going to confiscate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JoeB131's real name must be "Nobody" because I am always told that Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.
Click to expand...


The problem is, you guys are doing this to yourselves.  

ten years ago, I'd have been right with you on gun control.  

Now, after watching too many kids getting wheeled out of schools in body bags, you guys lost me.  

Because you'd rather see dead kids than fill out an extra bit of paperwork to make sure a guy like Holmes or Lanza or Loughner can't get a gun.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to own military grade machine guns is tightly controlled by the NFA of 1934
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet Joker Holmes was still able to buy one.
Click to expand...


Another lie from JoeyB.   What a surprise.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> Joker Holmes did not buy a military grade machine gun



Really? Looks like the same one I carried when I was in the Army.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> WHy are we letting ANYONE buy guns on line.  That's like fucking insane.
> 
> .



Holmes did not buy his guns online.  The retail sale of firearms over the internet must be completed face to face with a full background check.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if your paranoid delusions were accurate, you would be the poster boy for the NRA. If people though there was a snowball's chance in hell of you getting your wish, they would stockpile even more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasting their money on something the government is going to confiscate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JoeB131's real name must be "Nobody" because I am always told that Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you guys are doing this to yourselves.
> 
> ten years ago, I'd have been right with you on gun control.
> 
> Now, after watching too many kids getting wheeled out of schools in body bags, you guys lost me.
> 
> Because you'd rather see dead kids than fill out an extra bit of paperwork to make sure a guy like Holmes or Lanza or Loughner can't get a gun.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  You are not looking at "...an extra bit of paperwork".   You want all guns banned.   Too late to try and sound reasonable.

And if you are going to let the mental health professionals off the hook when they don't do their job, why would more paperwork do anything at all?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joker Holmes did not buy a military grade machine gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Looks like the same one I carried when I was in the Army.
Click to expand...


I am sure you could find an AirSoft one that looks like the one you carried in the Army.     You can also buy nonfiring replicas that look like the one you carried in the Army.

But the point is, they are not machine guns.   A machine gun fires continuously as long as you hold the trigger.  Does the gun Holmes bought do that??


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Really? Looks like the same one I carried when I was in the Army.



If you put a racing stripe a rear spoiler on your Hyundai it may look like a NASCAR  racer, but it will never win the Daytona 500.  A machine gun by definition is capable of firing more than one round with each pull of the trigger.  The firearm Holmes used was capable of firing only one round with each pull of the trigger


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> Holmes did not buy his guns online. The retail sale of firearms over the internet must be completed face to face with a full background check.



Right. A full background check that allowed a guy who thought he was a psychotic clown from a comic book to buy a military grade assault rifle and a 100 round magazine.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> self defense never happens, and the guns that the Joker got don't fit into any of those other categories.



Yes it does and yes it did.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> am sure you could find an AirSoft one that looks like the one you carried in the Army. You can also buy nonfiring replicas that look like the one you carried in the Army.
> 
> But the point is, they are not machine guns. A machine gun fires continuously as long as you hold the trigger. Does the gun Holmes bought do that??



Irrelevant. It did fire fast enough to where he could kill 12 people and injure 70 others. 

Holy Cognitive dissonance, Batman, did this point not become clear to you?


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> If you put a racing stripe a rear spoiler on your Hyundai it may look like a NASCAR racer, but it will never win the Daytona 500. A machine gun by definition is capable of firing more than one round with each pull of the trigger. The firearm Holmes used was capable of firing only one round with each pull of the trigger



Actually, the one Holmes had was designed to do exactly what the one I had in the army did. 

Kill a lot of people.  Which he totally did with it.  

And you guys are worried his trigger finger was getting tired?


----------



## Ringel05

Are all ya'll still arguing with this nonsensical, prevaricating zealot?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> am sure you could find an AirSoft one that looks like the one you carried in the Army. You can also buy nonfiring replicas that look like the one you carried in the Army.
> 
> But the point is, they are not machine guns. A machine gun fires continuously as long as you hold the trigger. Does the gun Holmes bought do that??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. It did fire fast enough to where he could kill 12 people and injure 70 others.
> 
> Holy Cognitive dissonance, Batman, did this point not become clear to you?
Click to expand...


Again, pure bullshit.   The term "machine gun" has a specific meaning.   The rifle he bought does not fit the term.  So when you call it a machine gun, for sensationalistic reasons, you are lying.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you put a racing stripe a rear spoiler on your Hyundai it may look like a NASCAR racer, but it will never win the Daytona 500. A machine gun by definition is capable of firing more than one round with each pull of the trigger. The firearm Holmes used was capable of firing only one round with each pull of the trigger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the one Holmes had was designed to do exactly what the one I had in the army did.
> 
> Kill a lot of people.  Which he totally did with it.
> 
> And you guys are worried his trigger finger was getting tired?
Click to expand...


We are simply calling you on your lie.   The gun he bought was NOT a machine gun.  You know this and continue to lie.  I enjoy making you look like a fool.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Again, pure bullshit. The term "machine gun" has a specific meaning. The rifle he bought does not fit the term. So when you call it a machine gun, for sensationalistic reasons, you are lying.



no, I am accurately describing a weapon with a high rate of fire designed to inflict a massive amount of damage on human flesh, which is what the AR-15/M16 was designed to do. 

You are bemoaning the fact poor Joker had to pull a trigger more than once to acheive his desired effect.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> We are simply calling you on your lie. The gun he bought was NOT a machine gun. You know this and continue to lie. I enjoy making you look like a fool.



No, you are trying to minimize the horror of what he did. That a clinically insane person was able to acquire a military grade semi-automatic weapon and a hundred rounds of ammo, and use it to kill or injure dozens of people.  

"but, but, but, it technicaly wasn't a machine gun!" you argue like a Star Wars Nerd trying to win a fight with a Star Trek nerd.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the one Holmes had was designed to do exactly what the one I had in the army did.
> 
> Kill a lot of people.  Which he totally did with it.
> 
> And you guys are worried his trigger finger was getting tired?



Incorrect.  Full auto and bust fire weapons are designed as "area weapons" similar to a hand grenade.  Designed to pacify an entire area simultaneously.  That is why their capabilities are described a "spray and pray.  An M-16 in full auto mode has an effective rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute.  The firearm Holmes employed had an effective rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute.  A difference in magnitude greater.

In comparison, a semi auto deer rifle has an effective rate of fire of 50 rpm, a semi auto handgun has an effective rate of fire of 50 rpm, a Winchester repeating rifle has an effective rate of fire of 40 rpm, a bolt action rifle has an effective rate of fire of 20 rpm.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you put a racing stripe a rear spoiler on your Hyundai it may look like a NASCAR racer, but it will never win the Daytona 500. A machine gun by definition is capable of firing more than one round with each pull of the trigger. The firearm Holmes used was capable of firing only one round with each pull of the trigger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the one Holmes had was designed to do exactly what the one I had in the army did.
> 
> Kill a lot of people.  Which he totally did with it.
> 
> And you guys are worried his trigger finger was getting tired?
Click to expand...


Any firearm can fit the description "Kill a lot of people".   The simple fact is that the rifle he had did not operate like the one you had in the Army.


JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holmes did not buy his guns online. The retail sale of firearms over the internet must be completed face to face with a full background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. A full background check that allowed a guy who thought he was a psychotic clown from a comic book to buy a military grade assault rifle and a 100 round magazine.
Click to expand...


Did he tell the clerk he thought he was The Joker?  Or do you expect him to read minds?

All it would have taken is for one single entry to be made in the database, and they would not have sold him a gun.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are simply calling you on your lie. The gun he bought was NOT a machine gun. You know this and continue to lie. I enjoy making you look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are trying to minimize the horror of what he did. That a clinically insane person was able to acquire a military grade semi-automatic weapon and a hundred rounds of ammo, and use it to kill or injure dozens of people.
> 
> "but, but, but, it technicaly wasn't a machine gun!" you argue like a Star Wars Nerd trying to win a fight with a Star Trek nerd.
Click to expand...


No, not at all.  I am not minimizing the horror of what he did.  I am correcting your terminology of what the gun shop sold him.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> No, you are trying to minimize the horror of what he did. That a clinically insane person was able to acquire a military grade semi-automatic weapon and a hundred rounds of ammo, and use it to kill or injure dozens of people.
> 
> "but, but, but, it technicaly wasn't a machine gun!" you argue like a Star Wars Nerd trying to win a fight with a Star Trek nerd.



Actually he killed more people with his Joe Biden endorsed shotgun and his hand guns than his semi auto sporting rifle that looked like a scary machine gun, due to the fact that his "high capacity mag" jammed.


----------



## Ringel05

legaleagle_45 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the one Holmes had was designed to do exactly what the one I had in the army did.
> 
> Kill a lot of people.  Which he totally did with it.
> 
> And you guys are worried his trigger finger was getting tired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  Full auto and bust fire weapons are designed as "area weapons" similar to a hand grenade.  Designed to pacify an entire area simultaneously.  That is why their capabilities are described a "spray and pray.  An M-16 in full auto mode has an effective rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute.  The firearm Holmes employed had an effective rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute.  A difference in magnitude greater.
> 
> In comparison, a semi auto deer rifle has an effective rate of fire of 50 rpm, a semi auto handgun has an effective rate of fire of 50 rpm, a Winchester repeating rifle has an effective rate of fire of 40 rpm, a bolt action rifle has an effective rate of fire of 20 rpm.
Click to expand...

His argument (if you want to call it that) has been destroyed a thousand time over, there's nothing rational one can approach him with as his entire approach is purely emotive and presented as any blind zealot would.  There's no way to have a rational argument with his ilk.


----------



## WinterBorn

Ringel05 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the one Holmes had was designed to do exactly what the one I had in the army did.
> 
> Kill a lot of people.  Which he totally did with it.
> 
> And you guys are worried his trigger finger was getting tired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  Full auto and bust fire weapons are designed as "area weapons" similar to a hand grenade.  Designed to pacify an entire area simultaneously.  That is why their capabilities are described a "spray and pray.  An M-16 in full auto mode has an effective rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute.  The firearm Holmes employed had an effective rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute.  A difference in magnitude greater.
> 
> In comparison, a semi auto deer rifle has an effective rate of fire of 50 rpm, a semi auto handgun has an effective rate of fire of 50 rpm, a Winchester repeating rifle has an effective rate of fire of 40 rpm, a bolt action rifle has an effective rate of fire of 20 rpm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His argument (if you want to call it that) has been destroyed a thousand time over, there's nothing rational one can approach him with as his entire approach is purely emotive and presented as any blind zealot would.  There's no way to have a rational argument with his ilk.
Click to expand...


Eh, you are right and I know this.  But its still fun to verbally slap him around a bit.  I can picture him blowing up at his computer.  lol


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> Incorrect. Full auto and bust fire weapons are designed as "area weapons" similar to a hand grenade. Designed to pacify an entire area simultaneously. That is why their capabilities are described a "spray and pray. An M-16 in full auto mode has an effective rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. The firearm Holmes employed had an effective rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute. A difference in magnitude greater.



Not really.  He was able to empty that 100 round magazine in less than two minutes. He killed 12 people and injured 70 others.  

And the gun industry was happy to sell him that gun, because, um, "Founding Fathers" or something.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> His argument (if you want to call it that) has been destroyed a thousand time over, there's nothing rational one can approach him with as his entire approach is purely emotive and presented as any blind zealot would. There's no way to have a rational argument with his ilk.



YOur the ones arguing madmen should be able to shoot children because you don't want to fill out extra paperwork.  

That's not emotive, that's just crazy.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yes they did. it just that the militia amendment did not make the final cut. The individual right to have and use arms for private purposes did make the final cut, much to your chagrin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, again, these were the same racist assholes who talked smack about "All Men are created equal" and then built a country based on racism and genocide.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Don't like it?  Here is what can be done...

First you get 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate to pass a proposed a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment.  Then you get 38 states to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment and "poof" the 2nd Amendment disappears.

You should demand that the Democratic Party adopt such a policy as a central plank of their 2016 Presidential Election Platform... suggested campaign slogan:

*Vote democratic Party 2016-- dismantling the Bill of Rights one amendment at time!
*
Good luck!


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Eh, you are right and I know this. But its still fun to verbally slap him around a bit. I can picture him blowing up at his computer. lol



Funny, only guy I see blowing up is you, Cleetus.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His argument (if you want to call it that) has been destroyed a thousand time over, there's nothing rational one can approach him with as his entire approach is purely emotive and presented as any blind zealot would. There's no way to have a rational argument with his ilk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur the ones arguing madmen should be able to shoot children because you don't want to fill out extra paperwork.
> 
> That's not emotive, that's just crazy.
Click to expand...

I never argued that.  Thanks for verifying your emotive zealousness.  Again......


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> Yep. Don't like it? Here is what can be done...
> 
> First you get 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate to pass a proposed a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. Then you get 38 states to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment and "poof" the 2nd Amendment disappears.
> 
> You should demand that the Democratic Party adopt such a policy as a central plank of their 2016 Presidential Election Platform... suggested campaign slogan:



Naw, here's how you do it. 

Antonin Scalia takes a well-deserved dirt nap.  He is replaced by President Hillary by a sane person who recognizes that Comic Book Clowns don't constitute a "Well-Regulated Militia".  

You then get a majority in Congress to repeal the stupidity that gun sellers and manufacturers aren't liable for the deaths their products call.  You swamp the gun industry in lawsuits and in discovery, you find out how they and the NRA have watered down background checks and influenced politicians.  

Then you make gun ownership a privilage instead of a right, just like every other country has done.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.  He was able to empty that 100 round magazine in less than two minutes. He killed 12 people and injured 70 others.



Incorrect, his high cap mag jammed because he was trying to fire his weapon too quickly (something it was not designed to do) so he had to abandon his semi auto sporting rifle in favor of his Joe Biden endorsed shotgun and his handguns which accounted for a majority of those killed and  the vast majority of the injuries (because a Joe Biden approved shotgun tends to wound a lot of people in an enclosed space.   I guess you were not paying attention to the facts of the case as introduced at trial, huh?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Full auto and bust fire weapons are designed as "area weapons" similar to a hand grenade. Designed to pacify an entire area simultaneously. That is why their capabilities are described a "spray and pray. An M-16 in full auto mode has an effective rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. The firearm Holmes employed had an effective rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute. A difference in magnitude greater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  He was able to empty that 100 round magazine in less than two minutes. He killed 12 people and injured 70 others.
> 
> And the gun industry was happy to sell him that gun, because, um, "Founding Fathers" or something.
Click to expand...


Another lie.  What a surprise.    No, he did not empty the 100 round magazine.

"Madman James Holmes was forced to switch weapons when his Smith & Wesson M&P 15, with a special 100-round drum magazine, failed after a few shots."    from: Rifle failure that stopped yet more Batman carnage World News Daily Express

"The law enforcement official said authorities think the gunman first used the shotgun — some victims have buckshot wounds — and then began using the assault rifle, which jammed. Then he resorted to the handgun."    from: Aurora Colo. shooting spree A day of tears for victims and twists in case - The Washington Post


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> I never argued that. Thanks for verifying your emotive zealousness.



Guy, you argue exactly that.  

You just don't realize it.  

You see, usually when something bad happens, in a democracy, we make sure it never happens again. For instance, the end result of that train crash will be a lot of safety improvements. 

BUt not for gun deaths.  Pretty much a Lanza or a Holmes or a Loughner shoots up a bunch of people, and you gun nuts are pretty much manning the barricades making sure no changes happen. 

You argue for "conceal carry" to be changed to "open Carry".  Which is just nuts. 

And every year, we find ourselves with more metal detectors and more Closed circuit TV and more police armed like soldiers because the bad guys are armed like soldiers, and you cry about "Freedom" when frankly, we are a lot less free than other industrialized nations that have had the good sense to limit private gun ownership.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> Incorrect, his high cap mag jammed because he was trying to fire his weapon too quickly (something it was not designed to do) so he had to abandon his semi auto sporting rifle in favor of his Joe Biden endorsed shotgun and his handguns which accounted for a majority of those killed and the vast majority of the injuries (because a Joe Biden approved shotgun tends to wound a lot of people in an enclosed space. I guess you were not paying attention to the facts of the case as introduced at trial, huh?



So your argument is that his trigger finger was getting tired?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, you are right and I know this. But its still fun to verbally slap him around a bit. I can picture him blowing up at his computer. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, only guy I see blowing up is you, Cleetus.
Click to expand...


I'm doing fine.  I'm multitasking so I can get work done and have a few laughs.

You are the one lying and making shit up.  That is the sign of desperation.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Another lie. What a surprise. No, he did not empty the 100 round magazine.
> 
> "Madman James Holmes was forced to switch weapons when his Smith & Wesson M&P 15, with a special 100-round drum magazine, failed after a few shots." from: Rifle failure that stopped yet more Batman carnage World News Daily Express
> 
> "The law enforcement official said authorities think the gunman first used the shotgun — some victims have buckshot wounds — and then began using the assault rifle, which jammed. Then he resorted to the handgun." from: Aurora Colo. shooting spree A day of tears for victims and twists in case - The Washington Post



Another one arguing for a tired trigger finger. 

Hey, dumbass, the fact that it could have been worse doesn't mean it still wasn't pretty bad.  

These are weapons the guy never, ever should have had.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> I'm doing fine. I'm multitasking so I can get work done and have a few laughs.
> 
> You are the one lying and making shit up. That is the sign of desperation.



Yeah, you see, the dirty pictures don't take themselves, apparently.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, his high cap mag jammed because he was trying to fire his weapon too quickly (something it was not designed to do) so he had to abandon his semi auto sporting rifle in favor of his Joe Biden endorsed shotgun and his handguns which accounted for a majority of those killed and the vast majority of the injuries (because a Joe Biden approved shotgun tends to wound a lot of people in an enclosed space. I guess you were not paying attention to the facts of the case as introduced at trial, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that his trigger finger was getting tired?
Click to expand...


WTF?   Are you really this stupid?  How does a gun jamming equate to his finger getting tired??


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie. What a surprise. No, he did not empty the 100 round magazine.
> 
> "Madman James Holmes was forced to switch weapons when his Smith & Wesson M&P 15, with a special 100-round drum magazine, failed after a few shots." from: Rifle failure that stopped yet more Batman carnage World News Daily Express
> 
> "The law enforcement official said authorities think the gunman first used the shotgun — some victims have buckshot wounds — and then began using the assault rifle, which jammed. Then he resorted to the handgun." from: Aurora Colo. shooting spree A day of tears for victims and twists in case - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one arguing for a tired trigger finger.
> 
> Hey, dumbass, the fact that it could have been worse doesn't mean it still wasn't pretty bad.
> 
> These are weapons the guy never, ever should have had.
Click to expand...


Another lie.   JoeyB is going full steam in his usual methods.

Ok, nimrod, please point out where I said anything about his finger getting tired?   I posted the linked info to debunk your claim that he emptied a 100 round magazine.  He didn't.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, here's how you do it.
> 
> Antonin Scalia takes a well-deserved dirt nap.  He is replaced by President Hillary by a sane person who recognizes that Comic Book Clowns don't constitute a "Well-Regulated Militia".
> 
> You then get a majority in Congress to repeal the stupidity that gun sellers and manufacturers aren't liable for the deaths their products call.  You swamp the gun industry in lawsuits and in discovery, you find out how they and the NRA have watered down background checks and influenced politicians.
> 
> Then you make gun ownership a privilage instead of a right, just like every other country has done.



It is clear that Comic Book Clowns don't constitute a "Well-Regulated Militia".  But that, of course is irrelevant.  The right to keep and bear arms is delegated to the people and not the "well regulated militia."

* "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 Dershowitz, former National Board member of the ACLU, Harvard Constitutional Law Professor and famed appellate attorney.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm doing fine. I'm multitasking so I can get work done and have a few laughs.
> 
> You are the one lying and making shit up. That is the sign of desperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you see, the dirty pictures don't take themselves, apparently.
Click to expand...


What?    You are a rambling idiot, aren't you?   What the hell is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never argued that. Thanks for verifying your emotive zealousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you argue exactly that.
> 
> You just don't realize it.
> 
> You see, usually when something bad happens, in a democracy, we make sure it never happens again. For instance, the end result of that train crash will be a lot of safety improvements.
> 
> BUt not for gun deaths.  Pretty much a Lanza or a Holmes or a Loughner shoots up a bunch of people, and you gun nuts are pretty much manning the barricades making sure no changes happen.
> 
> You argue for "conceal carry" to be changed to "open Carry".  Which is just nuts.
> 
> And every year, we find ourselves with more metal detectors and more Closed circuit TV and more police armed like soldiers because the bad guys are armed like soldiers, and you cry about "Freedom" when frankly, we are a lot less free than other industrialized nations that have had the good sense to limit private gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Wow.......  When was your last psych eval?  Obviously you're overdue.


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> It is clear that Comic Book Clowns don't constitute a "Well-Regulated Militia". But that, of course is irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is delegated to the people and not the "well regulated militia."
> 
> * "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 Dershowitz, former National Board member of the ACLU, Harvard Constitutional Law Professor and famed appellate attorney.



this is the same Alan Dershashitz who has gotten murderers off on technicalities and was banging underage girls on an island, right?  

Here's the thing.  Maybe the Militia made sense in 1787, but it really doesn't make sense in 2015.  

Other countries limit private gun ownership, and they are much freer than we are. Equating gun ownership to freedom is foolish when you have to maintain damn near a police state to keep order.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Wow....... When was your last psych eval? Obviously you're overdue



Duly noted you couldn't argue the point.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> What? You are a rambling idiot, aren't you? What the hell is that supposed to mean?



Aren't you the guy who used to be a cop in Cleetusland until you beccame a PI?  Or do I have you confused with someone else?  Because you can't keep the Bubbas straight without a scorecard.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....... When was your last psych eval? Obviously you're overdue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duly noted you couldn't argue the point.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with your zealous prevarications, no sane person can.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You are a rambling idiot, aren't you? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the guy who used to be a cop in Cleetusland until you beccame a PI?  Or do I have you confused with someone else?  Because you can't keep the Bubbas straight without a scorecard.
Click to expand...


How about sticking with the actual topic?  I know that is a novel concept for you, much like using facts or telling the truth would be.

No, I am not a cop.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that Comic Book Clowns don't constitute a "Well-Regulated Militia". But that, of course is irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is delegated to the people and not the "well regulated militia."
> 
> * "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 Dershowitz, former National Board member of the ACLU, Harvard Constitutional Law Professor and famed appellate attorney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the same Alan Dershashitz who has gotten murderers off on technicalities and was banging underage girls on an island, right?
> 
> Here's the thing.  Maybe the Militia made sense in 1787, but it really doesn't make sense in 2015.
> 
> Other countries limit private gun ownership, and they are much freer than we are. Equating gun ownership to freedom is foolish when you have to maintain damn near a police state to keep order.
Click to expand...


That is fine.  Muster up the support to amend the US Constitution and remove the 2nd amendment.


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.  Maybe the Militia made sense in 1787, but it really doesn't make sense in 2015.



If you feel the 2nd Amend is outdated, here is your solution:

First you get 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate to pass a proposed a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. Then you get 38 states to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment and "poof" the 2nd Amendment disappears.

You should demand that the Democratic Party adopt such a policy as a central plank of their 2016 Presidential Election Platform... suggested campaign slogan:

*Vote democratic Party 2016-- dismantling the Bill of Rights one amendment at time!
*
Good luck!


----------



## legaleagle_45

JoeB131 said:


> So your argument is that his trigger finger was getting tired?



Nope, you failed remedial reading in High School, huh? I am saying his semi auto sporting rifle jammed after a few rounds because he was trying to fire it too fast.  He then used other weapons to kill most of his victims.  If his trigger finger got too tired he could not have used other firearms requiring the pulling of a trigger, he would have use his knife perhaps.... I guess you were not paying attention to the facts of the case as introduced at trial, huh?


----------



## WinterBorn

legaleagle_45 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that his trigger finger was getting tired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you failed remedial reading in High School, huh? I am saying his semi auto sporting rifle jammed after a few rounds because he was trying to fire it too fast.  He then used other weapons to kill most of his victims.  If his trigger finger got too tired he could not have used other firearms requiring the pulling of a trigger, he would have use his knife perhaps.... I guess you were not paying attention to the facts of the case as introduced at trial, huh?
Click to expand...


Facts are really not relevant to JoeyB.   That is why he keeps harping on the "machine gun" idea, despite the fact that is was not a machine gun and that the rifle jammed after firing only a few rounds.


----------



## Ringel05

WinterBorn said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that his trigger finger was getting tired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you failed remedial reading in High School, huh? I am saying his semi auto sporting rifle jammed after a few rounds because he was trying to fire it too fast.  He then used other weapons to kill most of his victims.  If his trigger finger got too tired he could not have used other firearms requiring the pulling of a trigger, he would have use his knife perhaps.... I guess you were not paying attention to the facts of the case as introduced at trial, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are really not relevant to JoeyB.   That is why he keeps harping on the "machine gun" idea, despite the fact that is was not a machine gun and that the rifle jammed after firing only a few rounds.
Click to expand...

There are times when one can say, "thank God for after market magazines!"


----------



## PredFan

Stephanie said:


> Yeah but but but. don't dare accuse her and that Nasty station she is on, Msnbc: as being Fringe and Extremist.
> 
> who want's to watch a liberal talking head screeching and melting down all the time. icky
> 
> that's why they (liberals) can't make it big on the radio, like say a Rush Limbaugh. they drive people to want to poke their ear drums out and ...



Looking at her is bad enough, but hearing her too? That's more than any person should have to endure.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> That is fine. Muster up the support to amend the US Constitution and remove the 2nd amendment.



or we just stack the courts with jurists who see it our way.  

Man, you don't understand the concept of doing it the easy way.  

After 8 years of President Hillary, how many conservatives do you think will be left on SCOTUS.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Facts are really not relevant to JoeyB. That is why he keeps harping on the "machine gun" idea, despite the fact that is was not a machine gun and that the rifle jammed after firing only a few rounds.



I'm sure the people killed by those "few rounds" feel much better. 

"Oh my god, I have a sucking 5.56MM hole in my chest!

"It's okay, man.  It was only a semi-automatic!"


----------



## JoeB131

legaleagle_45 said:


> If you feel the 2nd Amend is outdated, here is your solution:
> 
> First you get 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate to pass a proposed a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. Then you get 38 states to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment and "poof" the 2nd Amendment disappears.
> 
> You should demand that the Democratic Party adopt such a policy as a central plank of their 2016 Presidential Election Platform... suggested campaign slogan:



No, we just need to get non-crazy people on the Supreme Court.  

scalia and kennedy are pushing 80.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel the 2nd Amend is outdated, here is your solution:
> 
> First you get 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate to pass a proposed a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. Then you get 38 states to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment and "poof" the 2nd Amendment disappears.
> 
> You should demand that the Democratic Party adopt such a policy as a central plank of their 2016 Presidential Election Platform... suggested campaign slogan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we just need to get non-crazy people on the Supreme Court.
> 
> scalia and kennedy are pushing 80.
Click to expand...


Oliver Wendell Holmes was 90 when he retired.  If Scalia and Kennedy stay till they are 90, they will be there for another 11 years.  Hillary won't get to nominate their replacement (assuming she wins).   And you are assuming Hillary wins and gets enough of a senate majority to push thru an anti-gun jurist.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are really not relevant to JoeyB. That is why he keeps harping on the "machine gun" idea, despite the fact that is was not a machine gun and that the rifle jammed after firing only a few rounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the people killed by those "few rounds" feel much better.
> 
> "Oh my god, I have a sucking 5.56MM hole in my chest!
> 
> "It's okay, man.  It was only a semi-automatic!"
Click to expand...


You really have difficulty with relevance, don't you.   No one has cheered the deaths of those people, unlike you cheering the deaths of people you dislike.   But you called the AR that Holmes bought a "machine gun" and claimed he emptied the 100 round magazine.  Both were lies.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah behind every gun banner is a Democrat Party Fluffer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a right wing republican until Bush fucked up the country.  Now i know better.  Unfortunately, we aren't going to get rid of people like the Bush family until we get rid of the people who support them for stupid reason. That means the religious nuts, the gun nuts and the libertarian nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no common sense when it comes to guns You are on record saying no citizen should own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to give me a "good" reason why a civilian should own a gun. but that aside, there's always room for comprimise.
> 
> No one should own a military grade weapon.
> No one should have a clip that has more than 10 rounds.  If you can't hit your target at ten rounds, you shouldn't be shooting.
> No civilian should own armor piercing bullets.
> Guns should only be sold by licensed dealers, after thorough background checks.
> When they sell a gun to the wrong person, they should be held criminally responsible.
> Doctors should be able to warn families of the dangers of guns in the home.
> 
> These are all things you gun fetishists opposed.
Click to expand...

yeah I believe you I really do.  I was an Aztec demigod until the spanish came and screwed up the new world.  

my grandfather's 45 was a military grade weapon-MORON

my KABAR fighting knife is a MILITARY GRADE Weapon-MORON

people like you are lying assholes. and since there are MANY criminals law abiding citizens shouldn't be limited to 10 rounds


----------



## turtledude

legaleagle_45 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is the right to own military grade machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to own military grade machine guns is tightly controlled by the NFA of 1934
Click to expand...

Do you think Joeb even has a clue what makes a weapon "military grade"

hell, given militaries have used firearms for close to 700 years or so, most of my guns are well beyond "military grade".
he is a lying turd and his anti gun idiocy has nothing to do with crime control

he admitted it

he's had numerous meltdowns over W preventing Gore from stealing the election

he blames the religious right and gun owners for keeping Gore out of the White House

that is why JoeB-a HARD CORE GORE/KERRY/OBAMA FLUFFER is so hateful towards gun owners

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC SAFETY


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason no one is telling you why Holmes having a machine gun was a good idea is simple. Holmes didn't have a machine gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, frankly, if you want to keep redefining things, let's call it a pop gun.  So why was it a good idea for Holmes to have a military grade pop gun that fired a hundred rounds allowing him to kill or injure nearly 100 people.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, we are not going to ban guns. I am all for boosting mental health facilities. I am all for the VA doing more for veterans. But I am not giving up my constitutionally guaranteed right because of the actions of 0.001% of the gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are perfectly willing to let children die so you can compensate fora  tiny dick. got it.
Click to expand...


your fixation on the penis size of another poster demonstrates to me that you probably are a flaming fairy and your hatred of gun owners is based on your perception that gun owners are hostile to gay rights


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Oliver Wendell Holmes was 90 when he retired. If Scalia and Kennedy stay till they are 90, they will be there for another 11 years. Hillary won't get to nominate their replacement (assuming she wins). And you are assuming Hillary wins and gets enough of a senate majority to push thru an anti-gun jurist.



That's wishful thinking.  

And frankly, you guys don't have the balls to fight a nominee on that one.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Do you think Joeb even has a clue what makes a weapon "military grade"
> 
> hell, given militaries have used firearms for close to 700 years or so, most of my guns are well beyond "military grade".
> he is a lying turd and his anti gun idiocy has nothing to do with crime control
> 
> he admitted it



Uh, no, I didn't. But that' okay, I know you gun nuts need to believe that you aren't the problem when you are. 



turtledude said:


> he's had numerous meltdowns over W preventing Gore from stealing the election



No, I've had a real problem with the fact that Bush stole the election, got us into an unnecessary war and wrecked the economy.   I'm not sure why you don't.  



turtledude said:


> he blames the religious right and gun owners for keeping Gore out of the White House



I blame them for helping Bush get close enough to steal an election.  So I'm not in the mood to comprimise with them.  Hang Joker HOlmes around their neck at every oppurtunity.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> You really have difficulty with relevance, don't you. No one has cheered the deaths of those people, unlike you cheering the deaths of people you dislike. But you called the AR that Holmes bought a "machine gun" and claimed he emptied the 100 round magazine. Both were lies.



Uh, guy, you are the one who worried poor Holmes finger got tired or something.  

The relevence is that guns are too easy to get if this Clown could get one.  That's the relevence.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> my grandfather's 45 was a military grade weapon-MORON
> 
> my KABAR fighting knife is a MILITARY GRADE Weapon-MORON



Yes, only wannabees would want to own such weapons.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> people like you are lying assholes. and since there are MANY criminals law abiding citizens shouldn't be limited to 10 rounds



Are all ten of them going to show up at once?  I mean, I know you fetishist like to arm yourselves like the Zombie Apocolypse is going to break out, but frankly, if you can't hit one bad guy with ten rounds, you probalby shouldn't be trusted with a gun.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> my grandfather's 45 was a military grade weapon-MORON
> 
> my KABAR fighting knife is a MILITARY GRADE Weapon-MORON
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, only wannabees would want to own such weapons.
Click to expand...


STFU moron.   you are a whining Demotard whose main whine is that gun owners TEND to vote against DEMOTARDS


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have difficulty with relevance, don't you. No one has cheered the deaths of those people, unlike you cheering the deaths of people you dislike. But you called the AR that Holmes bought a "machine gun" and claimed he emptied the 100 round magazine. Both were lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, you are the one who worried poor Holmes finger got tired or something.
> 
> The relevence is that guns are too easy to get if this Clown could get one.  That's the relevence.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  Like I said, show where I said anything about his finger getting tired.  You invented that crap.  I called you on your lies.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have difficulty with relevance, don't you. No one has cheered the deaths of those people, unlike you cheering the deaths of people you dislike. But you called the AR that Holmes bought a "machine gun" and claimed he emptied the 100 round magazine. Both were lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, you are the one who worried poor Holmes finger got tired or something.
> 
> The relevence is that guns are too easy to get if this Clown could get one.  That's the relevence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Like I said, show where I said anything about his finger getting tired.  You invented that crap.  I called you on your lies.
Click to expand...


we could fertilize the sahara desert with the manure JoeB squirts on this forum weekly. 

he already admitted his gun hate comes from Bush beating sore/loserman in 2000


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Kleck has not been debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he has. Thoroughly.  Get your head out of your ass and actually read something other than NRA gun Fetish websites..
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't. They aren't inhabited by bible thumping rednecks who keep voting against their own economic interests.  They actually realize that you avoid mass murder by NOT LETTING CRAZY PEOPLE HAVE GUNS.  It's an amazing context.
> 
> They also have some silly idea about not letting people starve, and they don't have anywhere near the crime rates we have.
Click to expand...


No he has not.  You are lying as per usual.  

They are different countries that do not have the same freedoms that Americans do.  If you like those countries so much, then go there!  Please!  I'll help you pack.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well, let's think about that. Maybe due to the fact that MOST mass shootings happen in "gun free zones." Another great idea and law that some nitwit came up with that does not work and, in fact, pretty much makes those places targets for mass shootings. Of course, they know there is no one there that can stop them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, they really don't.  Tuscon wasn't a "gun free zone".  Loughner was still able to shoot six people to death.  Your "Good guy with a gun" damn near shot the person who disarmed him.
Click to expand...


I said MOST.  Pay attention.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yes they did. it just that the militia amendment did not make the final cut. The individual right to have and use arms for private purposes did make the final cut, much to your chagrin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, again, these were the same racist assholes who talked smack about "All Men are created equal" and then built a country based on racism and genocide.
Click to expand...


You are so dumb.  I really tried to have a decent conversation with you, but it is just impossible because you are too asinine.


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well, let's think about that. Maybe due to the fact that MOST mass shootings happen in "gun free zones." Another great idea and law that some nitwit came up with that does not work and, in fact, pretty much makes those places targets for mass shootings. Of course, they know there is no one there that can stop them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, they really don't.  Tuscon wasn't a "gun free zone".  Loughner was still able to shoot six people to death.  Your "Good guy with a gun" damn near shot the person who disarmed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said MOST.  Pay attention.
Click to expand...


Joeb already admitted that the reason why he hates gun owners is that they helped elect W over his beloved Al Gore the   idiot bore.  It has nothing to do with crime control, nothing to do with making American streets safer but rather the spiteful butt hurt whining of an Al Gore FLUFFER


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well, let's think about that. Maybe due to the fact that MOST mass shootings happen in "gun free zones." Another great idea and law that some nitwit came up with that does not work and, in fact, pretty much makes those places targets for mass shootings. Of course, they know there is no one there that can stop them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, they really don't.  Tuscon wasn't a "gun free zone".  Loughner was still able to shoot six people to death.  Your "Good guy with a gun" damn near shot the person who disarmed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said MOST.  Pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joeb already admitted that the reason why he hates gun owners is that they helped elect W over his beloved Al Gore the   idiot bore.  It has nothing to do with crime control, nothing to do with making American streets safer but rather the spiteful butt hurt whining of an Al Gore FLUFFER
Click to expand...


Yes, I read his stupid posts.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> STFU moron. you are a whining Demotard whose main whine is that gun owners TEND to vote against DEMOTARDS



Gun owners vote to have their jobs shipped to China, and then cling to their guns and their bibles and pretend they still have control over their lives.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Bullshit. Like I said, show where I said anything about his finger getting tired. You invented that crap. I called you on your lies.



Guy, you were the ones who said, "Well, it wasn't military grade because he had to keep pulling the trigger", not because it fires a high-powered military grade round specifically designed to do enormas damage to human flesh.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I said MOST. Pay attention.



Except most aren't.  

Columbine had armed guards.
Fort Hood was a fucking military base. So was the Washington Naval Yard. 
VA Tech had an armed police force.  

There were plenty of good guys with guns in the mass shootings.  It's just that your average "active shooter events" are usually over before anyone has a chance to react.  

Even trained LEO.  

That's why the "good guy with a gun is a fallacy".  The bad guy with a gun has done his thing long before the "good guy" even knows what is going on.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Like I said, show where I said anything about his finger getting tired. You invented that crap. I called you on your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you were the ones who said, "Well, it wasn't military grade because he had to keep pulling the trigger", not because it fires a high-powered military grade round specifically designed to do enormas damage to human flesh.
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I said.  I said it wasn't a machine gun.  And it isn't.  Remember?   Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".



Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side. 

but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
Click to expand...


But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun.  The one Holmes had was not.  And his jammed after firing only a few rounds.  He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said.  You lie more than a politician.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said MOST. Pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except most aren't.
> 
> Columbine had armed guards.
> Fort Hood was a fucking military base. So was the Washington Naval Yard.
> VA Tech had an armed police force.
> 
> There were plenty of good guys with guns in the mass shootings.  It's just that your average "active shooter events" are usually over before anyone has a chance to react.
> 
> Even trained LEO.
> 
> That's why the "good guy with a gun is a fallacy".  The bad guy with a gun has done his thing long before the "good guy" even knows what is going on.
Click to expand...


MOST are done in gun free zones.  ALL schools are gun free zons.  The army base WAS also a gun free zone.  All of those you mentioned above were considered "gun free" zones.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
Click to expand...

What else was stamped on "your" Army "AR-15".........?


----------



## WinterBorn

Ringel05 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What else was stamped on "your" Army "AR-15".........?
Click to expand...


Arguing with JoeyB is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how badly you beat him, he still shits on the board & struts away like he won.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What else was stamped on "your" Army "AR-15".........?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arguing with JoeyB is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how badly you beat him, he still shits on the board & struts away like he won.
Click to expand...

He really is a pompous fowl.  But remember, his panty voiding idiocy is based on the fact that he is still sore that Al GOre couldn't steal the election because most serious gun owners voted for BUSH. and JoeBanGuns has yet to get over that

so when that mincing moron lisps about crime etc, ignore his rants and point out that he hates those of us who kept SORE/LOSERMAN out of the White House


----------



## WinterBorn

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What else was stamped on "your" Army "AR-15".........?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arguing with JoeyB is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how badly you beat him, he still shits on the board & struts away like he won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He really is a pompous fowl.  But remember, his panty voiding idiocy is based on the fact that he is still sore that Al GOre couldn't steal the election because most serious gun owners voted for BUSH. and JoeBanGuns has yet to get over that
> 
> so when that mincing moron lisps about crime etc, ignore his rants and point out that he hates those of us who kept SORE/LOSERMAN out of the White House
Click to expand...


Well he has shown he is not concerned about saving lives.  He just wants guns gone.  In fact, he is in favor of the gov't murdering those he dislikes.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun. The one Holmes had was not. And his jammed after firing only a few rounds. He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said. You lie more than a politician.



He killed 12 people. He injured 70 others.  

he was living the NRA dream.  Unfortunately, it's a nightmare for the rest of us.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> He really is a pompous fowl. But remember, his panty voiding idiocy is based on the fact that he is still sore that Al GOre couldn't steal the election because most serious gun owners voted for BUSH. and JoeBanGuns has yet to get over that
> 
> so when that mincing moron lisps about crime etc, ignore his rants and point out that he hates those of us who kept SORE/LOSERMAN out of the White House



actually, voted for Bush in 2000.  But the fact is, the gun nuts put him over the top and he wrecked the country. 

I've paid for my m istake. time you gun nuts paid for yours.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> MOST are done in gun free zones. ALL schools are gun free zons. The army base WAS also a gun free zone. All of those you mentioned above were considered "gun free" zones.



Gee, the only place I've ever handled a gun was on an army base.  Didn't look "gun free" to me.  

But if a mass shooter can kill a dozen people on an Army base, - TWICE - not sure what chance anyone else has.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun. The one Holmes had was not. And his jammed after firing only a few rounds. He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said. You lie more than a politician.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He killed 12 people. He injured 70 others.
> 
> he was living the NRA dream.  Unfortunately, it's a nightmare for the rest of us.
Click to expand...


More bullshit.   Nobody in the NRA wants massacres.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST are done in gun free zones. ALL schools are gun free zons. The army base WAS also a gun free zone. All of those you mentioned above were considered "gun free" zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, the only place I've ever handled a gun was on an army base.  Didn't look "gun free" to me.
> 
> But if a mass shooter can kill a dozen people on an Army base, - TWICE - not sure what chance anyone else has.
Click to expand...


And you carried a gun around base when you were off duty?   Really?   Because most bases do not allow soldiers to be armed except on duty, and that is mainly at the gates or other secure areas.  If you claim people wander around armed on base you are lying yet again.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> He really is a pompous fowl. But remember, his panty voiding idiocy is based on the fact that he is still sore that Al GOre couldn't steal the election because most serious gun owners voted for BUSH. and JoeBanGuns has yet to get over that
> 
> so when that mincing moron lisps about crime etc, ignore his rants and point out that he hates those of us who kept SORE/LOSERMAN out of the White House
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, voted for Bush in 2000.  But the fact is, the gun nuts put him over the top and he wrecked the country.
> 
> I've paid for my m istake. time you gun nuts paid for yours.
Click to expand...


That means you voted for Bush more than I did.  So it is your fault, not mine.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> He really is a pompous fowl. But remember, his panty voiding idiocy is based on the fact that he is still sore that Al GOre couldn't steal the election because most serious gun owners voted for BUSH. and JoeBanGuns has yet to get over that
> 
> so when that mincing moron lisps about crime etc, ignore his rants and point out that he hates those of us who kept SORE/LOSERMAN out of the White House
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, voted for Bush in 2000.  But the fact is, the gun nuts put him over the top and he wrecked the country.
> 
> I've paid for my m istake. time you gun nuts paid for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means you voted for Bush more than I did.  So it is your fault, not mine.
Click to expand...


yeah I am glad we had Alito and Roberts on the Heller decision rather than two lefty-lesbians that we would have had from the Democrats if they had made the choice


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST are done in gun free zones. ALL schools are gun free zons. The army base WAS also a gun free zone. All of those you mentioned above were considered "gun free" zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, the only place I've ever handled a gun was on an army base.  Didn't look "gun free" to me.
> 
> But if a mass shooter can kill a dozen people on an Army base, - TWICE - not sure what chance anyone else has.
Click to expand...

Hey moron, none of the victims were able to pack


----------



## turtledude

Ringel05 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What else was stamped on "your" Army "AR-15".........?
Click to expand...


lubricate before asserting into rectum?


----------



## WinterBorn

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST are done in gun free zones. ALL schools are gun free zons. The army base WAS also a gun free zone. All of those you mentioned above were considered "gun free" zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, the only place I've ever handled a gun was on an army base.  Didn't look "gun free" to me.
> 
> But if a mass shooter can kill a dozen people on an Army base, - TWICE - not sure what chance anyone else has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey moron, none of the victims were able to pack
Click to expand...


What do you expect from him.  He remembers that his rifle had "AR" stamped on the side and looked just like the rifle Holmes used.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> More bullshit. Nobody in the NRA wants massacres.



Of course they do. 

The purpose of the NRA is to keep as many people scared as humanly possible. Since hunting has fallen out of fashion, the only way to keep people buying guns is to keep them scared.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> What do you expect from him. He remembers that his rifle had "AR" stamped on the side and looked just like the rifle Holmes used.



It was the same rifle, save a minor, unimportant change.  But you guys keep pretending that a killer clown with an automatic weapon is no big thing.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Hey moron, none of the victims were able to pack



Wouldn't have made a difference if they did.  

That's the point.  Ft. Hood was an Army base.  they've had TWO mass shooting incidents. 

VA Tech had a whole fucking police force.  But Cho had killed dozens of people before they even figured out where his corpse was.  

In fact, of "Active Shooter" incidents, only 4% were stopped by armed citizens or off duty police (more likely the latter).  13% were stopped by UNARMED citizens.  56% were stopped when the shooter either killed himself or otherwise decided to stop shooting. 

10 Lessons Learned from the new FBI Study on Active Shooters Active Response Training


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> yeah I am glad we had Alito and Roberts on the Heller decision rather than two lefty-lesbians that we would have had from the Democrats if they had made the choice



Too bad Heller isn't going to last after Scalia and Kennedy take a dirt nap and Hillary appoints their replacements.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from him. He remembers that his rifle had "AR" stamped on the side and looked just like the rifle Holmes used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the same rifle, save a minor, unimportant change.  But you guys keep pretending that a killer clown with an automatic weapon is no big thing.
Click to expand...


Did your rifle have "AR15" stamped on the side?


----------



## JoeB131

Yes, it did.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from him. He remembers that his rifle had "AR" stamped on the side and looked just like the rifle Holmes used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the same rifle, save a minor, unimportant change.  But you guys keep pretending that a killer clown with an automatic weapon is no big thing.
Click to expand...


Holmes didn't have an automatic weapon.  An automatic weapon is a machine gun.   He had an auto loader, but not an automatic.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, it did.



So your Army unit wasn't issued the Colt M16?


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun.  The one Holmes had was not.  And his jammed after firing only a few rounds.  He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said.  You lie more than a politician.
Click to expand...


He lies more than a rug!


JoeB131 said:


> Yes, it did.



I certainly wouldn't put it past you to lie.  I think that is what this is all about.  You are projecting.  Since you are dishonest and untrustworthy, you just assume everyone else is too.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST are done in gun free zones. ALL schools are gun free zons. The army base WAS also a gun free zone. All of those you mentioned above were considered "gun free" zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, the only place I've ever handled a gun was on an army base.  Didn't look "gun free" to me.
> 
> But if a mass shooter can kill a dozen people on an Army base, - TWICE - not sure what chance anyone else has.
Click to expand...


Well then you don't know what you are talking about, do you?  

Fort Hood Gun-Free Zones and Progressive Insanity - Matt Barber - Page full

“In 2009 Islamist killer Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood was a gun-free zone.

“Hasan reportedly screamed, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he committed his mass murder. …

“Barack Obama termed this Islamic terrorist attack ‘workplace violence.’ Complete lunacy.

“After the first mass killing nothing changed. Fort Hood is still a gun-free zone. President Bill Clinton’s gun-free policies are still in place.

“Today there was another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Soldiers were told to take cover and hide like cowards as a crazed gunman shot at least 14 Americans on base. The shooter, Ivan Lopez, then shot himself in the head.

“These deaths are the result of failed policies. These deaths are the result of a dangerous ‘gun free zone’ policy.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, none of the victims were able to pack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have made a difference if they did.
> 
> That's the point.  Ft. Hood was an Army base.  they've had TWO mass shooting incidents.
> 
> VA Tech had a whole fucking police force.  But Cho had killed dozens of people before they even figured out where his corpse was.
> 
> In fact, of "Active Shooter" incidents, only 4% were stopped by armed citizens or off duty police (more likely the latter).  13% were stopped by UNARMED citizens.  56% were stopped when the shooter either killed himself or otherwise decided to stop shooting.
> 
> 10 Lessons Learned from the new FBI Study on Active Shooters Active Response Training
Click to expand...

God is this guy a lying moron.  the victims were disarmed.  if all the victims had been armed, far less innocents would have died.  in VT, a teacher died holding a door shut while students escaped. If the students had been armed, they could have killed Choi as he tried to force is way into the room

You were really too stupid for words because incidents when attackers are stopped BEFORE they can kill enough people for the massacre to be called a MASS SHOOTING, are not CALLED A MASS SHOOTING.  so if an active shooter is SHOT after killing THREE PEOPLE, that isn't recorded as a case of an armed citizen stopping a mass killing

its like saying VACCINES never stopped an epidemic because where people are vaccinated, there is not massive sickness from the disease being vaccinated against


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun.  The one Holmes had was not.  And his jammed after firing only a few rounds.  He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said.  You lie more than a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lies more than a rug!
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't put it past you to lie.  I think that is what this is all about.  You are projecting.  Since you are dishonest and untrustworthy, you just assume everyone else is too.
Click to expand...



his biggest lie is something he admitted to.

he admits his hard on for gun owners is based on GORE not being able to steal the election because most of us gun owners voted for W.  so all his garment voiding rants about crime is a facade


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun.  The one Holmes had was not.  And his jammed after firing only a few rounds.  He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said.  You lie more than a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lies more than a rug!
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't put it past you to lie.  I think that is what this is all about.  You are projecting.  Since you are dishonest and untrustworthy, you just assume everyone else is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> his biggest lie is something he admitted to.
> 
> he admits his hard on for gun owners is based on GORE not being able to steal the election because most of us gun owners voted for W.  so all his garment voiding rants about crime is a facade
Click to expand...


I think it is that plus other things that make Joe "mad."


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bullshit. Nobody in the NRA wants massacres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.
> 
> The purpose of the NRA is to keep as many people scared as humanly possible. Since hunting has fallen out of fashion, the only way to keep people buying guns is to keep them scared.
Click to expand...


stupid Gorebot, its gun banners like you who cum in your pants every time there is a massacre so you can use the blood of the innocents to fuel  your unholy jihad against our gun rights

and you prove what a moron you are

if crime is so bad that gun bans directed at honest people are needed, crime is so bad that honest people need to be heavily armed

and there are reasons for people owning guns other than for protection against crime

THERE IS no other argument for gun bans that impact good people than Crime control and if crime isn't all that bad, we don't need anymore laws that mainly impact good people


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't a machine gun. And it isn't. Remember? Back when you said "but it LOOKS LIKE the one I used in the Army!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun.  The one Holmes had was not.  And his jammed after firing only a few rounds.  He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said.  You lie more than a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lies more than a rug!
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't put it past you to lie.  I think that is what this is all about.  You are projecting.  Since you are dishonest and untrustworthy, you just assume everyone else is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> his biggest lie is something he admitted to.
> 
> he admits his hard on for gun owners is based on GORE not being able to steal the election because most of us gun owners voted for W.  so all his garment voiding rants about crime is a facade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is that plus other things that make Joe "mad."
Click to expand...


You aren't saying he's a hysterical fairy are you?


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> He really is a pompous fowl. But remember, his panty voiding idiocy is based on the fact that he is still sore that Al GOre couldn't steal the election because most serious gun owners voted for BUSH. and JoeBanGuns has yet to get over that
> 
> so when that mincing moron lisps about crime etc, ignore his rants and point out that he hates those of us who kept SORE/LOSERMAN out of the White House
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, voted for Bush in 2000.  But the fact is, the gun nuts put him over the top and he wrecked the country.
> 
> I've paid for my m istake. time you gun nuts paid for yours.
Click to expand...

You were old enough to vote in 2000??!!  Musta used your great grandfathers identity........  and claimed you were a midget at the polls.........


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, the one I had in the Army said "AR-15" on the side.
> 
> but the poor clown's finger was getting tired.  If psychotic comic book clowns can't own machine guns are any of us truly free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun.  The one Holmes had was not.  And his jammed after firing only a few rounds.  He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said.  You lie more than a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lies more than a rug!
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't put it past you to lie.  I think that is what this is all about.  You are projecting.  Since you are dishonest and untrustworthy, you just assume everyone else is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> his biggest lie is something he admitted to.
> 
> he admits his hard on for gun owners is based on GORE not being able to steal the election because most of us gun owners voted for W.  so all his garment voiding rants about crime is a facade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is that plus other things that make Joe "mad."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't saying he's a hysterical fairy are you?
Click to expand...


  Mmmaybe.


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the rifle you had in the Army WAS a machine gun.  The one Holmes had was not.  And his jammed after firing only a few rounds.  He didn't "empty the 100 round magazine" like you said.  You lie more than a politician.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lies more than a rug!
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't put it past you to lie.  I think that is what this is all about.  You are projecting.  Since you are dishonest and untrustworthy, you just assume everyone else is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> his biggest lie is something he admitted to.
> 
> he admits his hard on for gun owners is based on GORE not being able to steal the election because most of us gun owners voted for W.  so all his garment voiding rants about crime is a facade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is that plus other things that make Joe "mad."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't saying he's a hysterical fairy are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmaybe.
Click to expand...


Hissy fit throwing fairies are often hateful towards gun owners because they ASSume that most gun owners aren't fans of their "rights"


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lies more than a rug!
> I certainly wouldn't put it past you to lie.  I think that is what this is all about.  You are projecting.  Since you are dishonest and untrustworthy, you just assume everyone else is too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> his biggest lie is something he admitted to.
> 
> he admits his hard on for gun owners is based on GORE not being able to steal the election because most of us gun owners voted for W.  so all his garment voiding rants about crime is a facade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is that plus other things that make Joe "mad."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't saying he's a hysterical fairy are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmaybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hissy fit throwing fairies are often hateful towards gun owners because they ASSume that most gun owners aren't fans of their "rights"
Click to expand...


I also think that Joe probably doesn't trust himself with a gun, and so he projects that onto everyone else.  With all the crazy things that he spews around this board, it only makes sense.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bullshit. Nobody in the NRA wants massacres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.
> 
> The purpose of the NRA is to keep as many people scared as humanly possible. Since hunting has fallen out of fashion, the only way to keep people buying guns is to keep them scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stupid Gorebot, its gun banners like you who cum in your pants every time there is a massacre so you can use the blood of the innocents to fuel  your unholy jihad against our gun rights
> 
> and you prove what a moron you are
> 
> if crime is so bad that gun bans directed at honest people are needed, crime is so bad that honest people need to be heavily armed
> 
> and there are reasons for people owning guns other than for protection against crime
> 
> THERE IS no other argument for gun bans that impact good people than Crime control and if crime isn't all that bad, we don't need anymore laws that mainly impact good people
Click to expand...


It's easier for some of them to just try and ban the tool and put a band aid on the problem instead of addressing the actual problem, which is untreated mental illness and our revolving door policy that we use with the mentally ill.  They come into a facility, they are medicated and stabilized as well "as possible" and then discharged back out into the community.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> So your Army unit wasn't issued the Colt M16?



They're the same thing.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> It's easier for some of them to just try and ban the tool and put a band aid on the problem instead of addressing the actual problem, which is untreated mental illness and our revolving door policy that we use with the mentally ill. They come into a facility, they are medicated and stabilized as well "as possible" and then discharged back out into the community.



So what's your solution, lock them up for the rest of their lives when they come in for treatment? We tried that, and it didn't work.  You had husbands locking up their wives for depression and then running off with their mistresses. 

The thing is, the mentally ill person shooting up a theatre or a school is the tip of the gun culture iceberg. Beneath that are all the deaths, injuries and crimes we don't see because they aren't as spectacular, but are the result of a gun fetishist culture that creates fear to sell weapons.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> God is this guy a lying moron. the victims were disarmed. if all the victims had been armed, far less innocents would have died. in VT, a teacher died holding a door shut while students escaped. If the students had been armed, they could have killed Choi as he tried to force is way into the room



Except, again, that never happens.  And frankly, I wouldn't want to go to a campus where all the drunken frat boys are packing.  



turtledude said:


> You were really too stupid for words because incidents when attackers are stopped BEFORE they can kill enough people for the massacre to be called a MASS SHOOTING, are not CALLED A MASS SHOOTING. so if an active shooter is SHOT after killing THREE PEOPLE, that isn't recorded as a case of an armed citizen stopping a mass killing



Except that you guys never give an example of a guy who was loaded for bear who was stopped before shooting anyone by a civilian.  In fact, the list that you guys gave of ten supposed incidents all included either off-duty cops or military who stopped the shooting.  

The ready to go NRA member with a gun?  That never happens. 

A great example was the incident win Las Vegas where ANOTHER guy who liked to dress up as The Joker (Seriously, what is it with these guys ruining a perfectly good comic book character?) shot two cops and there was a civilian with a gun who pulled out his piece and... 

promptly got shot by his girlfriend who liked to dress up as Harley Quinn.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> “In 2009 Islamist killer Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood was a gun-free zone.
> 
> “Hasan reportedly screamed, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he committed his mass murder. …
> 
> “Barack Obama termed this Islamic terrorist attack ‘workplace violence.’ Complete lunacy.



They were shot by a co-worker, so, no, not really.  If there's a word I'd love to expunge from the language, it's "Terrorism".   Because half the guys we call "Terrorists" we used to call "Freedom Fighters" when they were killing people we didn't like.  


ChrisL said:


> “Today there was another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Soldiers were told to take cover and hide like cowards as a crazed gunman shot at least 14 Americans on base. The shooter, Ivan Lopez, then shot himself in the head.
> 
> “These deaths are the result of failed policies. These deaths are the result of a dangerous ‘gun free zone’ policy.



Yeah, so I was wondering what the result would have been if all those people were packing.  

You got some MP who has a description of a "Shooter in Uniform".   Then he sees a guy come out from behind a building with a gun!  What do you do at that point. "Hey, buddy , are you the mad shooter or some concerned citizen who just wants to help"


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your Army unit wasn't issued the Colt M16?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're the same thing.
Click to expand...


I thought you said you worked with these rifles?   If you can tell the difference between 600 rounds per minute and 60 rounds per minute, you don't know much.

And the rate of fire is a very important distinction.  Unlike say....."It looks like the one they gave me in the Army".


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> thought you said you worked with these rifles? If you can tell the difference between 600 rounds per minute and 60 rounds per minute, you don't know much.
> 
> And the rate of fire is a very important distinction. Unlike say....."It looks like the one they gave me in the Army".



Joker Holmes did plenty of damage at 60 rounds a minute. 

But the poor dear's finger got tired.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> thought you said you worked with these rifles? If you can tell the difference between 600 rounds per minute and 60 rounds per minute, you don't know much.
> 
> And the rate of fire is a very important distinction. Unlike say....."It looks like the one they gave me in the Army".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joker Holmes did plenty of damage at 60 rounds a minute.
> 
> But the poor dear's finger got tired.
Click to expand...


He fired a few rounds and it jammed.  The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people.  But don't let the facts get in your way.

And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal.  But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie.  And you know it.   One is a machine gun and one is not.  That they are shaped the same is not relevant.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.



They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.  

They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
Click to expand...


They are still not the same rifle.  One is a fully automatic machine gun and the other is not.   600 rounds per minute and 60 rounds per minute are not the same thing.  Any claims that they are the same is simply another lie you tell.  And the fact that the rifle jammed after only a few rounds shows the irrelevance of your argument.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
Click to expand...


Please describe what you mean by "tumble".


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is this guy a lying moron. the victims were disarmed. if all the victims had been armed, far less innocents would have died. in VT, a teacher died holding a door shut while students escaped. If the students had been armed, they could have killed Choi as he tried to force is way into the room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, again, that never happens.  And frankly, I wouldn't want to go to a campus where all the drunken frat boys are packing.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were really too stupid for words because incidents when attackers are stopped BEFORE they can kill enough people for the massacre to be called a MASS SHOOTING, are not CALLED A MASS SHOOTING. so if an active shooter is SHOT after killing THREE PEOPLE, that isn't recorded as a case of an armed citizen stopping a mass killing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you guys never give an example of a guy who was loaded for bear who was stopped before shooting anyone by a civilian.  In fact, the list that you guys gave of ten supposed incidents all included either off-duty cops or military who stopped the shooting.
> 
> The ready to go NRA member with a gun?  That never happens.
> 
> A great example was the incident win Las Vegas where ANOTHER guy who liked to dress up as The Joker (Seriously, what is it with these guys ruining a perfectly good comic book character?) shot two cops and there was a civilian with a gun who pulled out his piece and...
> 
> promptly got shot by his girlfriend who liked to dress up as Harley Quinn.
Click to expand...


stop lying and stop whining about safety issues when you have already admitted your jihad against gun owners is based on how you think we voted in 2000


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> thought you said you worked with these rifles? If you can tell the difference between 600 rounds per minute and 60 rounds per minute, you don't know much.
> 
> And the rate of fire is a very important distinction. Unlike say....."It looks like the one they gave me in the Army".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joker Holmes did plenty of damage at 60 rounds a minute.
> 
> But the poor dear's finger got tired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed.  The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people.  But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal.  But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie.  And you know it.   One is a machine gun and one is not.  That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
Click to expand...

and if you ask  him at what rate of fire should be legal, it will be whatever is less than we have now and then if that ban is passed, it will be less what is then legal

JoeB is a mindless mad dog gun banner.  He doesn't have a sensible argument or position because he has admitted he wants to punish gun owners for our voting patterns.  So he doesn't have a rational plan that would actually control criminals.  Rather his scheme is to harass GOP voters which he figures includes most gun owners

He's a hating reactionary mentally diminished GoreBot who devolved into an Obama Suckler.


----------



## WinterBorn

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is this guy a lying moron. the victims were disarmed. if all the victims had been armed, far less innocents would have died. in VT, a teacher died holding a door shut while students escaped. If the students had been armed, they could have killed Choi as he tried to force is way into the room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, again, that never happens.  And frankly, I wouldn't want to go to a campus where all the drunken frat boys are packing.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were really too stupid for words because incidents when attackers are stopped BEFORE they can kill enough people for the massacre to be called a MASS SHOOTING, are not CALLED A MASS SHOOTING. so if an active shooter is SHOT after killing THREE PEOPLE, that isn't recorded as a case of an armed citizen stopping a mass killing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you guys never give an example of a guy who was loaded for bear who was stopped before shooting anyone by a civilian.  In fact, the list that you guys gave of ten supposed incidents all included either off-duty cops or military who stopped the shooting.
> 
> The ready to go NRA member with a gun?  That never happens.
> 
> A great example was the incident win Las Vegas where ANOTHER guy who liked to dress up as The Joker (Seriously, what is it with these guys ruining a perfectly good comic book character?) shot two cops and there was a civilian with a gun who pulled out his piece and...
> 
> promptly got shot by his girlfriend who liked to dress up as Harley Quinn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop lying and stop whining about safety issues when you have already admitted your jihad against gun owners is based on how you think we voted in 2000
Click to expand...


Yeah, I find it amusing that he hates me because of Bush.  But he admitted that he voted for Bush in 2000, while I never voted for George W.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> “In 2009 Islamist killer Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood was a gun-free zone.
> 
> “Hasan reportedly screamed, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he committed his mass murder. …
> 
> “Barack Obama termed this Islamic terrorist attack ‘workplace violence.’ Complete lunacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were shot by a co-worker, so, no, not really.  If there's a word I'd love to expunge from the language, it's "Terrorism".   Because half the guys we call "Terrorists" we used to call "Freedom Fighters" when they were killing people we didn't like.
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Today there was another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Soldiers were told to take cover and hide like cowards as a crazed gunman shot at least 14 Americans on base. The shooter, Ivan Lopez, then shot himself in the head.
> 
> “These deaths are the result of failed policies. These deaths are the result of a dangerous ‘gun free zone’ policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so I was wondering what the result would have been if all those people were packing.
> 
> You got some MP who has a description of a "Shooter in Uniform".   Then he sees a guy come out from behind a building with a gun!  What do you do at that point. "Hey, buddy , are you the mad shooter or some concerned citizen who just wants to help"
Click to expand...


So "no not really" what?  It was a gun free zone, just like I said.  It doesn't really matter if it was a coworker or not, now does it?  Stranger, coworker, what the hell is the difference when someone is shooting at you and you have no means of self defense?  

They probably would have aimed for HIM and shot and killed him.  It certainly isn't any MORE dangerous than a guy randomly shooting people until he runs out of ammo, now is it?


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

Hate to bust your bubble but no round is designed to tumble, it's a myth perpetrated in the 60s with the advent of the M16, bad loads and some claiming it tumbled to make the soldiers feel better about the lighter round.  
All rounds can "tumble" when striking a target, depends on many factors.  You really do need to get your facts straight.


----------



## WinterBorn

Ringel05 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to bust your bubble but no round is designed to tumble, it's a myth perpetrated in the 60s with the advent of the M16, bad loads and some claiming it tumbled to make the soldiers feel better about the lighter round.
> All rounds can "tumble" when striking a target, depends on many factors.  You really do need to get your facts straight.
Click to expand...


Yep.   Any round that tumbles before it hits will be wildly inaccurate.  In fact, the rifling makes the bullet spin to stabilize it.  If a round tumbles after it hits, it does less damage than an expanding bullet.  The tumbling bit is old bullshit and more proof JoeyB does know his ass from a hole in the ground where guns are concerned.


----------



## Ringel05

WinterBorn said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to bust your bubble but no round is designed to tumble, it's a myth perpetrated in the 60s with the advent of the M16, bad loads and some claiming it tumbled to make the soldiers feel better about the lighter round.
> All rounds can "tumble" when striking a target, depends on many factors.  You really do need to get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.   Any round that tumbles before it hits will be wildly inaccurate.  In fact, the rifling makes the bullet spin to stabilize it.  If a round tumbles after it hits, it does less damage than an expanding bullet.  The tumbling bit is old bullshit and more proof JoeyB does know his ass from a hole in the ground where guns are concerned.
Click to expand...

Used to have an old Enfield Mark I, #4, 303.  Was shooting a 55 gallon barrel at 30 yards with surplus WWII ammo and noticed the the strikes didn't look quite right.  On closer inspection not a single one had created a round hole and about a third of the hits showed a perfect silhouette....  Changed to modern 303 loads and it shot relatively straight true.  It was a combination of slightly worn rifling and the WWII ammo that had been stored so long the powder had settled to one side and compressed.  
As for the tumbling he's referring to it's after the round strikes the target, like I said any round will do this given the right conditions and it's more likely in smaller rounds though it's still a rarity.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

turtledude said:


> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus


Where does the link say the suit was ruled frivolous?


----------



## ChrisL

The Brady Center should have to pay the tab for the parents, as they are apparently the ones who instigated these lawsuits to begin with, and they provided attorneys, etc.  

It's frivolous because it goes against existing laws of Commerce and Trade regarding gun manufacturers and dealers, namely because they have no control over what a customer does with their product once it has been purchased.  If, however, the product is defective or there is some other issue for which they are actually at fault (and NOT the individual who purchased the weapon), then they can still be sued.  

The Brady Center's goal, obviously, is to try to change the laws in Colorado.


----------



## turtledude

OohPooPahDoo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the link say the suit was ruled frivolous?
Click to expand...


its frivolous as a matter of law.  You cannot sue a gun dealer or a gun maker merely because some asshole uses the gun illegally.  The only proper grounds for a lawsuit are as follows

1) the gun was defective and its defect led to a foreseeable injury

2) the dealer knowingly violated the laws by selling the gun without doing a check or to someone it knew or should have known was a prohibited person

So it was FRIVOLOUS per se


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is this guy a lying moron. the victims were disarmed. if all the victims had been armed, far less innocents would have died. in VT, a teacher died holding a door shut while students escaped. If the students had been armed, they could have killed Choi as he tried to force is way into the room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, again, that never happens.  And frankly, I wouldn't want to go to a campus where all the drunken frat boys are packing.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were really too stupid for words because incidents when attackers are stopped BEFORE they can kill enough people for the massacre to be called a MASS SHOOTING, are not CALLED A MASS SHOOTING. so if an active shooter is SHOT after killing THREE PEOPLE, that isn't recorded as a case of an armed citizen stopping a mass killing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you guys never give an example of a guy who was loaded for bear who was stopped before shooting anyone by a civilian.  In fact, the list that you guys gave of ten supposed incidents all included either off-duty cops or military who stopped the shooting.
> 
> The ready to go NRA member with a gun?  That never happens.
> 
> A great example was the incident win Las Vegas where ANOTHER guy who liked to dress up as The Joker (Seriously, what is it with these guys ruining a perfectly good comic book character?) shot two cops and there was a civilian with a gun who pulled out his piece and...
> 
> promptly got shot by his girlfriend who liked to dress up as Harley Quinn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop lying and stop whining about safety issues when you have already admitted your jihad against gun owners is based on how you think we voted in 2000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I find it amusing that he hates me because of Bush.  But he admitted that he voted for Bush in 2000, while I never voted for George W.
Click to expand...


good point but I suspect he is lying.  The Ben and Jerry Fairyes were told to say they were Bush voters when they called radio shows, posted on chat boards or wrote letters to the editor complaining about W. It more credible to say "I VOTED FOR BUSH BUT" rather than "I AM A HARD CORE DEMOCRAT AND BUSH SUCKS"


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> The Brady Center should have to pay the tab for the parents, as they are apparently the ones who instigated these lawsuits to begin with, and they provided attorneys, etc.
> 
> It's frivolous because it goes against existing laws of Commerce and Trade regarding gun manufacturers and dealers, namely because they have no control over what a customer does with their product once it has been purchased.  If, however, the product is defective or there is some other issue for which they are actually at fault (and NOT the individual who purchased the weapon), then they can still be sued.
> 
> The Brady Center's goal, obviously, is to try to change the laws in Colorado.



exactly.  the Brady thugs should be hit with massive lawsuits for filing such crap


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, it did.







Not if you were in the Army dude.  ONLY the USAF received the Model 614's.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
Click to expand...






Bullshit.  The only round that has been designed to tumble on impact is the Soviet era 5.45X39 which was designed with an air pocket in the nose thus biasing the center of gravity of the bullet to the rear which, upon impact will indeed cause the bullet to tumble.

You're simply lying here.


----------



## Ringel05

OohPooPahDoo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the link say the suit was ruled frivolous?
Click to expand...

The judge cited the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in the ruling, which in no uncertain terms renders the suit frivolous.  Not only should the Brady Campaign be forced to pay, the lawyers should be disciplined before the board for even bringing a lawsuit they knew wouldn't hold up in court.


----------



## turtledude

westwall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The only round that has been designed to tumble on impact is the Soviet era 5.45X39 which was designed with an air pocket in the nose thus biasing the center of gravity of the bullet to the rear which, upon impact will indeed cause the bullet to tumble.
> 
> You're simply lying here.
Click to expand...

I have about 20K rounds of that stuff that I stashed away when it was cheap.  Its corrosive so I don't shoot it much but you are absolutely correct


----------



## westwall

turtledude said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fired a few rounds and it jammed. The shotgun and Glock were the main weapons that killed people. But don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> And yes, the rifle Holmes used is lethal. But to claim it is the same thing as a full auto M16 is simply a lie. And you know it. One is a machine gun and one is not. That they are shaped the same is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fire the same round that is designed to "tumble", doing a massive amount of damage to human flesh.
> 
> They both have a very high rate of fire. In fact, they army discourages soliders from using the full-auto feature of the M-16 and eventually introduced the M249 SAW to serve as an infantry squad's full automatic weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The only round that has been designed to tumble on impact is the Soviet era 5.45X39 which was designed with an air pocket in the nose thus biasing the center of gravity of the bullet to the rear which, upon impact will indeed cause the bullet to tumble.
> 
> You're simply lying here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have about 20K rounds of that stuff that I stashed away when it was cheap.  Its corrosive so I don't shoot it much but you are absolutely correct
Click to expand...







That's why the Afghans called it the "poison bullet".  Mujahideen who were shot with the 7.62X39 tended to do OK if they weren't killed outright.  Those hit by the 5.45 though, would do OK for a couple of days then die.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> stop lying and stop whining about safety issues when you have already admitted your jihad against gun owners is based on how you think we voted in 2000



Guy, the point is, I've shown you that  "good guy with a gun" has never stopped a mass shooter. Another NRA lie debunked. 



turtledude said:


> JoeB is a mindless mad dog gun banner. He doesn't have a sensible argument or position because he has admitted he wants to punish gun owners for our voting patterns. So he doesn't have a rational plan that would actually control criminals. Rather his scheme is to harass GOP voters which he figures includes most gun owners



Yawn, guy, you gun whacks vote against my economic interests, I'm voting against your "tiny pecker compensation" interests.   The top thing it to make you own every dead child shot by a gun-toting crazy person.   They are all on you.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yeah, I find it amusing that he hates me because of Bush. But he admitted that he voted for Bush in 2000, while I never voted for George W.



The point is, I realize it was a horrible mistake.  You guys never admit that.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> The Brady Center should have to pay the tab for the parents, as they are apparently the ones who instigated these lawsuits to begin with, and they provided attorneys, etc.
> 
> It's frivolous because it goes against existing laws of Commerce and Trade regarding gun manufacturers and dealers, namely because they have no control over what a customer does with their product once it has been purchased. If, however, the product is defective or there is some other issue for which they are actually at fault (and NOT the individual who purchased the weapon), then they can still be sued.



But that's not the case. Again, go back to the tobacco settlement, where they proved thta the tobacco industry intentionally marketed to children, put out scientific disinformation to debunk the link between smoking and disease, etc.  

Lax gun laws and aggressive marketing campaigns cause people like Joker Holmes.  The gun industry needs to own him.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Not if you were in the Army dude. ONLY the USAF received the Model 614's.



Army got them to.  At least my unit did.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> The judge cited the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in the ruling, which in no uncertain terms renders the suit frivolous. Not only should the Brady Campaign be forced to pay, the lawyers should be disciplined before the board for even bringing a lawsuit they knew wouldn't hold up in court.



Well, then we need to challenge the constitutionality of the PLCAA.  This was something the NRA snuck in when no one was looking to protect the gun industry from it's recklessness.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I find it amusing that he hates me because of Bush. But he admitted that he voted for Bush in 2000, while I never voted for George W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, I realize it was a horrible mistake.  You guys never admit that.
Click to expand...


I admit to what I do, not what others do.  Pretty simple concept.


----------



## JoeB131

I think you are missing the point.  No Gun Nuts getting whipped up by the NRA, Gore would have won Florida and Tennessee. 

No Great recession
No War on Iraq
No letting horse show guys run FEMA.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> I think you are missing the point.  No Gun Nuts getting whipped up by the NRA, Gore would have won Florida and Tennessee.
> 
> No Great recession
> No War on Iraq
> No letting horse show guys run FEMA.



I think you are missing the point.  

But considering the number of lies you have posted, that isn't surprising.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> But considering the number of lies you have posted, that isn't surprising.



not missing the point at all. 

The way we get America back for Americans is to neuter the gun nuts, the religious nuts and the homophobic nuts.  

Becuase even the stupidest, inbred hillbilly wouldn't vote for the poison pill of corporate globalism if it wasn't wrapped in the bacon of "God, Guns and Gays"


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> But considering the number of lies you have posted, that isn't surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not missing the point at all.
> 
> The way we get America back for Americans is to neuter the gun nuts, the religious nuts and the homophobic nuts.
> 
> Becuase even the stupidest, inbred hillbilly wouldn't vote for the poison pill of corporate globalism if it wasn't wrapped in the bacon of "God, Guns and Gays"
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> But considering the number of lies you have posted, that isn't surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not missing the point at all.
> 
> The way we get America back for Americans is to neuter the gun nuts, the religious nuts and the homophobic nuts.
> 
> Becuase even the stupidest, inbred hillbilly wouldn't vote for the poison pill of corporate globalism if it wasn't wrapped in the bacon of "God, Guns and Gays"
Click to expand...


Taking guns away from 85-100 million people because 9,000 commit murders is insane.  As for the "God & Gays", that is a completely different topic.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge cited the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in the ruling, which in no uncertain terms renders the suit frivolous. Not only should the Brady Campaign be forced to pay, the lawyers should be disciplined before the board for even bringing a lawsuit they knew wouldn't hold up in court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then we need to challenge the constitutionality of the PLCAA.  This was something the NRA snuck in when no one was looking to protect the gun industry from it's recklessness.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> But considering the number of lies you have posted, that isn't surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not missing the point at all.
> 
> The way we get America back for Americans is to neuter the gun nuts, the religious nuts and the homophobic nuts.
> 
> Becuase even the stupidest, inbred hillbilly wouldn't vote for the poison pill of corporate globalism if it wasn't wrapped in the bacon of "God, Guns and Gays"
Click to expand...


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> But considering the number of lies you have posted, that isn't surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not missing the point at all.
> 
> The way we get America back for Americans is to neuter the gun nuts, the religious nuts and the homophobic nuts.
> 
> Becuase even the stupidest, inbred hillbilly wouldn't vote for the poison pill of corporate globalism if it wasn't wrapped in the bacon of "God, Guns and Gays"
Click to expand...


If we are bringing up random topics, how about the hypocrisy of those unions pushing for a $15 minimum wage and then demanding they be exempt from it.   The union must think it's ok for their people to make less than minimum wage.  So much for them looking out for the workers, huh?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy, you gun whacks vote against my economic interests, I'm voting against your "tiny pecker compensation" interests.   The top thing it to make you own every dead child shot by a gun-toting crazy person.   They are all on you.


that's because your terminology is flawed

I guess you never heard of Charles Whitman

Moron


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn*, guy, you gun whacks vote against my economic interests, I'm voting against your "tiny pecker compensation" interests.   The to*p thing it to make you own every dead child shot by a gun-toting crazy person.   They are all on you.



You mean you are sucking on the Public teat and you are mad many gun owners oppose the welfare state?


----------



## prison/con.net

and how about YOU "own" all the ones killed by some other means than a gun, punk?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Taking guns away from 85-100 million people because 9,000 commit murders is insane. As for the "God & Gays", that is a completely different topic.



Every other industrialized country does exactly that.  They only have murders in the three digits.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> You mean you are sucking on the Public teat and you are mad many gun owners oppose the welfare state?



No, guy, I mean you clowns make it easier for big corporations to fuck those of us who work for a living. 

I would LOVE to have my life from 2000 back.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking guns away from 85-100 million people because 9,000 commit murders is insane. As for the "God & Gays", that is a completely different topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every other industrialized country does exactly that.  They only have murders in the three digits.
Click to expand...


And this country has different laws and cultural differences.   There are more murders without guns than most of those same industrialized countries have too.   But I suppose that is conveniently ignored by you and your ilk.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you are sucking on the Public teat and you are mad many gun owners oppose the welfare state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I mean you clowns make it easier for big corporations to fuck those of us who work for a living.
> 
> I would LOVE to have my life from 2000 back.
Click to expand...


I work for a living.  And I am doing much better than I was in 2000.

Maybe you should look to yourself for the blame, instead of these boogiemen?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> And this country has different laws and cultural differences. There are more murders without guns than most of those same industrialized countries have too. But I suppose that is conveniently ignored by you and your ilk.



I don't ignore it, I just don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

If we ended private ownership of guns or even treated gun ownership like Germany does (where they have a decent amount of guns, but it isn't considered a 'right' and it is difficult to get one) you'd reduce the crime rate, you'd reduce the murder rate and yes, you would even reduce the suicide rate. 

We have a culture of locking up 2 million people, we have 32,000 gun deaths a year,  78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes.  And you have an NRA that really seems to think the best way to fight a fire is to throw gasoline on it.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> work for a living. And I am doing much better than I was in 2000.
> 
> Maybe you should look to yourself for the blame, instead of these boogiemen?



Yes, I know, you are making a very good living being an enforcer for businesses screwing their employers. 

but for those of us actually having to work for a living, not so much.  

Point was, I didn't need to work three jobs to make ends meet when Clinton was president. One job got the job done.  Then your boy Bush fucked things up, because hey, you gun nuts wanted your bibles and guns.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this country has different laws and cultural differences. There are more murders without guns than most of those same industrialized countries have too. But I suppose that is conveniently ignored by you and your ilk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it, I just don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> 
> If we ended private ownership of guns or even treated gun ownership like Germany does (where they have a decent amount of guns, but it isn't considered a 'right' and it is difficult to get one) you'd reduce the crime rate, you'd reduce the murder rate and yes, you would even reduce the suicide rate.
> 
> We have a culture of locking up 2 million people, we have 32,000 gun deaths a year,  78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes.  And you have an NRA that really seems to think the best way to fight a fire is to throw gasoline on it.
Click to expand...


You have no evidence whatsoever that banning guns would reduce the suicide rate.  It didn't in Australia.  Japan has no private gun ownership and a suicide rate that is twice ours.

The right to own gun is ours.  Want that changed?  Amend the US Constitution.  Until then you are left with nothing but your fantasies of a gov't run life and your lies.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> work for a living. And I am doing much better than I was in 2000.
> 
> Maybe you should look to yourself for the blame, instead of these boogiemen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, you are making a very good living being an enforcer for businesses screwing their employers.
> 
> but for those of us actually having to work for a living, not so much.
> 
> Point was, I didn't need to work three jobs to make ends meet when Clinton was president. One job got the job done.  Then your boy Bush fucked things up, because hey, you gun nuts wanted your bibles and guns.
Click to expand...


Right.  If we just had unions that campaign for a $15 minimum wage, but then demanded they be exempt, it would all be better.

What I do is make sure my co-workers follow the safety rules.  My employer pays me a reasonable salary to make sure his employees don't get hurt or killed.  How dare he screw them over by making sure they stay safe.

You are a joke.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> You have no evidence whatsoever that banning guns would reduce the suicide rate. It didn't in Australia. Japan has no private gun ownership and a suicide rate that is twice ours.
> 
> The right to own gun is ours. Want that changed? Amend the US Constitution. Until then you are left with nothing but your fantasies of a gov't run life and your lies.



Again, not necessary.  Scalia takes a dirt nap.  Lawrence Tribe takes his place, and the Second Amendemnt is about Militias again.  Done.  



WinterBorn said:


> Right. If we just had unions that campaign for a $15 minimum wage, but then demanded they be exempt, it would all be better.



Guy, most union jobs pay better than 15/hr.  And they have awesome benefits. 



WinterBorn said:


> What I do is make sure my co-workers follow the safety rules. My employer pays me a reasonable salary to make sure his employees don't get hurt or killed. How dare he screw them over by making sure they stay safe.



Oh, is that your story now?  Because I thought you were the guy who bragged you caught union guys beating up a scab and got them prosecuted.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence whatsoever that banning guns would reduce the suicide rate. It didn't in Australia. Japan has no private gun ownership and a suicide rate that is twice ours.
> 
> The right to own gun is ours. Want that changed? Amend the US Constitution. Until then you are left with nothing but your fantasies of a gov't run life and your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not necessary.  Scalia takes a dirt nap.  Lawrence Tribe takes his place, and the Second Amendemnt is about Militias again.  Done.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If we just had unions that campaign for a $15 minimum wage, but then demanded they be exempt, it would all be better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most union jobs pay better than 15/hr.  And they have awesome benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do is make sure my co-workers follow the safety rules. My employer pays me a reasonable salary to make sure his employees don't get hurt or killed. How dare he screw them over by making sure they stay safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that your story now?  Because I thought you were the guy who bragged you caught union guys beating up a scab and got them prosecuted.
Click to expand...


You are pinning all your hopes on one candidate getting elected, a SCOTUS justice dying, and a particular person being confirmed to replace him???   LMAO!!   And you think those spineless politicians will gut the 2nd Amendment for you?   lol  I bet you still believe in the tooth fairy too, huh?

If union jobs pay better (and I didn't say they didn't), why is are the unions demanding exemption from the $15 minimum wage laws?

That has been my story all along. I have been in the same field for almost 20 years.  I have never claimed otherwise.   Either you are confused or simply lying again.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> You are pinning all your hopes on one candidate getting elected, a SCOTUS justice dying, and a particular person being confirmed to replace him??? LMAO!! And you think those spineless politicians will gut the 2nd Amendment for you? lol I bet you still believe in the tooth fairy too, huh?



I think that the American people are tired of the NRA's extremism.  Eventually, people will figure out they only speak for a very small minority.   then we can actually start having a real conversation on guns without silly notions like, "The Founding Fathers said that Comic Book Clowns can have Machine Guns!"  



WinterBorn said:


> That has been my story all along. I have never claimed otherwise. Either you are confused or simply lying again.



I thought you said you were a private investigator who got paid to break up union strikes.  But whatever.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pinning all your hopes on one candidate getting elected, a SCOTUS justice dying, and a particular person being confirmed to replace him??? LMAO!! And you think those spineless politicians will gut the 2nd Amendment for you? lol I bet you still believe in the tooth fairy too, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the American people are tired of the NRA's extremism.  Eventually, people will figure out they only speak for a very small minority.   then we can actually start having a real conversation on guns without silly notions like, "The Founding Fathers said that Comic Book Clowns can have Machine Guns!"
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has been my story all along. I have never claimed otherwise. Either you are confused or simply lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said you were a private investigator who got paid to break up union strikes.  But whatever.
Click to expand...


I think the American people value the 2nd Amendment.  Logical and sensible gun laws are one thing.  The wholesale ban of private ownership, and the prosecution of people who followed the law, are an entirely different matter.

And just as an FYI, machine guns are heavily regulated and restricted.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pinning all your hopes on one candidate getting elected, a SCOTUS justice dying, and a particular person being confirmed to replace him??? LMAO!! And you think those spineless politicians will gut the 2nd Amendment for you? lol I bet you still believe in the tooth fairy too, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the American people are tired of the NRA's extremism.  Eventually, people will figure out they only speak for a very small minority.   then we can actually start having a real conversation on guns without silly notions like, "The Founding Fathers said that Comic Book Clowns can have Machine Guns!"
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has been my story all along. I have never claimed otherwise. Either you are confused or simply lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said you were a private investigator who got paid to break up union strikes.  But whatever.
Click to expand...


No.  I have never claimed to be a private investigator.  You are lost again.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> work for a living. And I am doing much better than I was in 2000.
> 
> Maybe you should look to yourself for the blame, instead of these boogiemen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, you are making a very good living being an enforcer for businesses screwing their employers.
> 
> but for those of us actually having to work for a living, not so much.
> 
> Point was, I didn't need to work three jobs to make ends meet when Clinton was president. One job got the job done.  Then your boy Bush fucked things up, because hey, you gun nuts wanted your bibles and guns.
Click to expand...


If you are working three jobs, you need to find another career and get the skills necessary to make a living.    Or get off the black-ball list for Workman's Comp Fraud.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> I think the American people value the 2nd Amendment. Logical and sensible gun laws are one thing. The wholesale ban of private ownership, and the prosecution of people who followed the law, are an entirely different matter.



If that was the case, then why did the NRA have to go to Congress to get a law passed to exempt gun sellers from civil libability AFTER Bushmaster paid out a big penalty in the DC Sniper case?  

Point is, the NRA doesn't trust the system or the law.  Their goal is to get as many guns out there so everyone is scared and wants guns, too.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> If you are working three jobs, you need to find another career and get the skills necessary to make a living. Or get off the black-ball list for Workman's Comp Fraud.



My skills are just fine, guy.  The problem was your Boy Bush fucked up the economy to the point where my employer can cheat me and get away with it.  

Get it?  

I am doing pretty much the same thing I was doing in 2000, and if anything, I'm a LOT better at it now.  But thanks to Bush and his "let's send all the good jobs to China" policy and the his "Let's crash the economy so my rich friends can profit" policy, employers used the recessions of 2001 and 2008 to drive wages down.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> No. I have never claimed to be a private investigator. You are lost again.



Now that I've notice, I do think I have you confused with some other asshole who uses a similar kind of AVI, so I apologize.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the American people value the 2nd Amendment. Logical and sensible gun laws are one thing. The wholesale ban of private ownership, and the prosecution of people who followed the law, are an entirely different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was the case, then why did the NRA have to go to Congress to get a law passed to exempt gun sellers from civil libability AFTER Bushmaster paid out a big penalty in the DC Sniper case?
> 
> Point is, the NRA doesn't trust the system or the law.  Their goal is to get as many guns out there so everyone is scared and wants guns, too.
Click to expand...


The point is that the manufacturer shouldn't be held liable for what they cannot control.  And what someone does with the gun they purchases legally is well beyond their control.  Your desire for such prosecution is laughably insane.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are working three jobs, you need to find another career and get the skills necessary to make a living. Or get off the black-ball list for Workman's Comp Fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My skills are just fine, guy.  The problem was your Boy Bush fucked up the economy to the point where my employer can cheat me and get away with it.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> I am doing pretty much the same thing I was doing in 2000, and if anything, I'm a LOT better at it now.  But thanks to Bush and his "let's send all the good jobs to China" policy and the his "Let's crash the economy so my rich friends can profit" policy, employers used the recessions of 2001 and 2008 to drive wages down.
Click to expand...


My boy Bush?   You voted for him in 2000.  I never voted for him.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are working three jobs, you need to find another career and get the skills necessary to make a living. Or get off the black-ball list for Workman's Comp Fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My skills are just fine, guy.  The problem was your Boy Bush fucked up the economy to the point where my employer can cheat me and get away with it.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> I am doing pretty much the same thing I was doing in 2000, and if anything, I'm a LOT better at it now.  But thanks to Bush and his "let's send all the good jobs to China" policy and the his "Let's crash the economy so my rich friends can profit" policy, employers used the recessions of 2001 and 2008 to drive wages down.
Click to expand...


If your skills are so much better, why do you need 3 jobs to get by?

I work one job, make decent money, have excellent benefits, and have my weekends free.  The days when you could work one job for your entire career are long gone.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The point is that the manufacturer shouldn't be held liable for what they cannot control. And what someone does with the gun they purchases legally is well beyond their control. Your desire for such prosecution is laughably insane.



But that's the point, THEY CAN control it.  

They just choose not to.  

For instance, the makers of various cold medications put very strict controls on sellers of their products when it was found some of them were using it to make crystal meth.  

If the gun industry really wanted to, they could develop their own system of background checks that would weed out guys like Holmes.  Instead, they've fought to water down background checks, keep loopholes like the gun show and private sellers intact, and of course the law they got passed AFTER a court determined that the DC Snipers got guns when they shouldn't have and fined them.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> If your skills are so much better, why do you need 3 jobs to get by?



Because Capitalism Sucks.  Next question. 



WinterBorn said:


> I work one job, make decent money, have excellent benefits, and have my weekends free. The days when you could work one job for your entire career are long gone.



And that's the problem.  You've had a 30 year war on working folks, starting with Reagan, fueled by the fact that the "bitter clingers" voted against their own economic interests for years because of the gun, God and Gays bullshit.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> No, guy, I mean you clowns make it easier for big corporations to fuck those of us who work for a living.
> 
> I would LOVE to have my life from 2000 back.




ah poor baby.  as if Obama has not engaged in crony capitalism

you ought to post less here and work harder.  You'd be better off financially


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> ah poor baby. as if Obama has not engaged in crony capitalism
> 
> you ought to post less here and work harder. You'd be better off financially



No,  I ought to be able to make a decent living for the skills I bring to the table. 

But thanks to idiotic republican policies you Gun Nuts voted for, I'm lucky to be getting by, and so are most people I know.  

We had it pretty good in 2000.  Bush spent 8 years fucking it up, but you all gots your guns and you managed to put off gay marriage for another half decade.  

I'm not seeing it as a good exchange.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> But that's the point, THEY CAN control it.
> 
> They just choose not to.
> 
> For instance, the makers of various cold medications put very strict controls on sellers of their products when it was found some of them were using it to make crystal meth.
> 
> If the gun industry really wanted to, they could develop their own system of background checks that would weed out guys like Holmes.  Instead, they've fought to water down background checks, keep loopholes like the gun show and private sellers intact, and of course the law they got passed AFTER a court determined that the DC Snipers got guns when they shouldn't have and fined them.



Hey Gorebot.  what exactly would have disqualified Holmes at the time he bought his guns.
The DC snipers victims SUED and the dealer and the gun company SETTLED


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> No,  I ought to be able to make a decent living for the skills I bring to the table.
> 
> But thanks to idiotic republican policies you Gun Nuts voted for, I'm lucky to be getting by, and so are most people I know.
> 
> We had it pretty good in 2000.  Bush spent 8 years fucking it up, but you all gots your guns and you managed to put off gay marriage for another half decade.
> 
> I'm not seeing it as a good exchange.



you again prove that your rants about guns is nothing more than a dishonest facade serving as a pretext for your real motivation. You assume most gun owners voted for Bush (we did-it was about gun rights and he put pro gun justices on the USSC).  I went from making about 1.4 million a year to over 2 by the end of the Bush administration.  

if you actually had a skilled trade or a profession  you wouldn't be whining.  Its not my fault you are some third string cubicle bunny


----------



## Ringel05

Finally got JoeBum figured out, it doesn't matter what facts one shows, doesn't matter how badly he's pounded on issues, he's simply a troll, nothing more, nothing less.  He has no intention of admitting he's wrong even though he knows it, he just wants to play this ongoing game and thinks he's being clever stinging along what he sees as far right extremists.  
Of course to him anyone to the right of Mao is a far right extremist.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Hey Gorebot.  what exactly would have disqualified Holmes at the time he bought his guns.
> The DC snipers victims SUED and the dealer and the gun company SETTLED



Exactly- they settled because they knew if it got in front of a jury, they'd get it a lot worse.  There would be discovery, just like you had with the tobacco lawsuits. So they settled and ran back to Congress to get protection.

For Holmes. One phone call to his University would have disqualified him.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> you again prove that your rants about guns is nothing more than a dishonest facade serving as a pretext for your real motivation. You assume most gun owners voted for Bush (we did-it was about gun rights and he put pro gun justices on the USSC).  I went from making about 1.4 million a year to over 2 by the end of the Bush administration.
> 
> if you actually had a skilled trade or a profession  you wouldn't be whining.  Its not my fault you are some third string cubicle bunny



I thought you said you were a Federal Agent... on, never mind.

Point is, spanky, we have Airline Pilots selling blood plasma and adjunct professors on food stamps.  Bush has fucked it up for most of us, inside and outside cubicles.

But you done gots your gun!


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> you again prove that your rants about guns is nothing more than a dishonest facade serving as a pretext for your real motivation. You assume most gun owners voted for Bush (we did-it was about gun rights and he put pro gun justices on the USSC).  I went from making about 1.4 million a year to over 2 by the end of the Bush administration.
> 
> if you actually had a skilled trade or a profession  you wouldn't be whining.  Its not my fault you are some third string cubicle bunny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you said you were a Federal Agent... on, never mind.
> 
> Point is, spanky, we have Airline Pilots selling blood plasma and adjunct professors on food stamps.  Bush has fucked it up for most of us, inside and outside cubicles.
> 
> But you done gots your gun!
Click to expand...


The two have nothing to do with each other.

I am a shooter, Hunter, and staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment.  And I never voted for Bush.

You are a socialist, anti-gun, union supporter.  And you voted for Bush.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The two have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> I am a shooter, Hunter, and staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. And I never voted for Bush.
> 
> You are a socialist, anti-gun, union supporter. And you voted for Bush.



I was referring to the macro, how gun control changed politics after we got a president who finally stood up to the NRA, but never mind.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> I am a shooter, Hunter, and staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. And I never voted for Bush.
> 
> You are a socialist, anti-gun, union supporter. And you voted for Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to the macro, how gun control changed politics after we got a president who finally stood up to the NRA, but never mind.
Click to expand...


Stood up to the NRA?   lol    Yeah, if that is what you want to call it.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Stood up to the NRA? lol Yeah, if that is what you want to call it.



Uh, yeah, he got the Brady Bill passed.  And instead of embracing this very sensible legislation, the gun industry went nuts.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stood up to the NRA? lol Yeah, if that is what you want to call it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, he got the Brady Bill passed.  And instead of embracing this very sensible legislation, the gun industry went nuts.
Click to expand...



exactly what did the brady bill do to stop gun violence?  Anyone? Anyone?  Bueller?   Bueller?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> exactly what did the brady bill do to stop gun violence? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?



Quite a lot.  

Gun homicides dropped from 7.07 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 3.48 in 2000

Guns in the United States Firearms gun law and gun control

The gun suicide rate dropped from 7.35 to 5.89


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly what did the brady bill do to stop gun violence? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot.
> 
> Gun homicides dropped from 7.07 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 3.48 in 2000
> 
> Guns in the United States Firearms gun law and gun control
> 
> The gun suicide rate dropped from 7.35 to 5.89
Click to expand...



The brady billl had nothing to do with those drops.....considering more people own and carry guns now.....but you are a gun grabber and lying and falsifying data are what you do....

How about explaining the mechanics of how the bradyh law lowered gun homicides in the U.S.?


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stood up to the NRA? lol Yeah, if that is what you want to call it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, he got the Brady Bill passed.  And instead of embracing this very sensible legislation, the gun industry went nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> exactly what did the brady bill do to stop gun violence?  Anyone? Anyone?  Bueller?   Bueller?
Click to expand...


well I can tell you

NOTHING


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Quite a lot.
> 
> Gun homicides dropped from 7.07 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 3.48 in 2000
> 
> Guns in the United States Firearms gun law and gun control
> 
> The gun suicide rate dropped from 7.35 to 5.89



that's not really a crime 

try again


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> The brady billl had nothing to do with those drops.....considering more people own and carry guns now.....but you are a gun grabber and lying and falsifying data are what you do....
> 
> How about explaining the mechanics of how the bradyh law lowered gun homicides in the U.S.?



You mean that people who wanted to buy a gun because they were "angry now" couldn't?  

You see, that's the thing, give a person time to cool off, they will.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brady billl had nothing to do with those drops.....considering more people own and carry guns now.....but you are a gun grabber and lying and falsifying data are what you do....
> 
> How about explaining the mechanics of how the bradyh law lowered gun homicides in the U.S.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that people who wanted to buy a gun because they were "angry now" couldn't?
> 
> You see, that's the thing, give a person time to cool off, they will.
Click to expand...


And the reduction in gun murders that you attribute to the Brady bill, were they significantly greater than the reductions before the bill?  Or after?  Just because it happened at the same time doesn't necessarily mean anything.

The bill also restricted "assault" rifles.  Those guns were used in less than 1% of violent crimes prior to the Brady bill.  While the Brady Bill was in effect, they still accounted for less than 1% of violent crimes.   And after it was allowed to expire?  Yep, still less than 1%.

The bill was window dressing and had little actual effect.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> And the reduction in gun murders that you attribute to the Brady bill, were they significantly greater than the reductions before the bill? Or after? Just because it happened at the same time doesn't necessarily mean anything.
> 
> The bill also restricted "assault" rifles. Those guns were used in less than 1% of violent crimes prior to the Brady bill. While the Brady Bill was in effect, they still accounted for less than 1% of violent crimes. And after it was allowed to expire? Yep, still less than 1%.
> 
> The bill was window dressing and had little actual effect.



Well, it had the effect of making the gun industry nuts... 

But I'll take the reductions in death, thank you.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the reduction in gun murders that you attribute to the Brady bill, were they significantly greater than the reductions before the bill? Or after? Just because it happened at the same time doesn't necessarily mean anything.
> 
> The bill also restricted "assault" rifles. Those guns were used in less than 1% of violent crimes prior to the Brady bill. While the Brady Bill was in effect, they still accounted for less than 1% of violent crimes. And after it was allowed to expire? Yep, still less than 1%.
> 
> The bill was window dressing and had little actual effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it had the effect of making the gun industry nuts...
> 
> But I'll take the reductions in death, thank you.
Click to expand...


I'll take the reductions too.  I just won't attribute them to the Brady bill, since the gun murder rates have been steadily dropping for decades.

In fact, the largest gun murder rate reductions have happened at a time when more people are getting CCW permits.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> I'll take the reductions too. I just won't attribute them to the Brady bill, since the gun murder rates have been steadily dropping for decades.
> 
> In fact, the largest gun murder rate reductions have happened at a time when more people are getting CCW permits.



Not really.  But you gun nuts keep telling yourself that.  I'm sure that you will parachute out of here to some gun nut website that will use dubious math to make those claims. 

Hey, you know what really would reduce gun deaths?  Banning fucking guns.  

Which is what every other industrial democracy has done.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take the reductions too. I just won't attribute them to the Brady bill, since the gun murder rates have been steadily dropping for decades.
> 
> In fact, the largest gun murder rate reductions have happened at a time when more people are getting CCW permits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  But you gun nuts keep telling yourself that.  I'm sure that you will parachute out of here to some gun nut website that will use dubious math to make those claims.
> 
> Hey, you know what really would reduce gun deaths?  Banning fucking guns.
> 
> Which is what every other industrial democracy has done.
Click to expand...


Because banning illegal drugs has stopped their use completely, hasn't it?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take the reductions too. I just won't attribute them to the Brady bill, since the gun murder rates have been steadily dropping for decades.
> 
> In fact, the largest gun murder rate reductions have happened at a time when more people are getting CCW permits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  But you gun nuts keep telling yourself that.  I'm sure that you will parachute out of here to some gun nut website that will use dubious math to make those claims.
> 
> Hey, you know what really would reduce gun deaths?  Banning fucking guns.
> 
> Which is what every other industrial democracy has done.
Click to expand...


Well that's funny considering that Chi town had one of the highest murder rates in the country, and that number has dropped since the gun bans were revoked.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brady billl had nothing to do with those drops.....considering more people own and carry guns now.....but you are a gun grabber and lying and falsifying data are what you do....
> 
> How about explaining the mechanics of how the bradyh law lowered gun homicides in the U.S.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that people who wanted to buy a gun because they were "angry now" couldn't?
> 
> You see, that's the thing, give a person time to cool off, they will.
Click to expand...

you are too stupid to understand that the "cooling off" if it is going to happen will happen long before you drive to a gun shop, pick out a gun, fill out the paperwork, wait for the NICS check to clear

stupid Gorebot


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Because banning illegal drugs has stopped their use completely, hasn't it?



Certainly has reduced the problem from when I was growing up.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> you are too stupid to understand that the "cooling off" if it is going to happen will happen long before you drive to a gun shop, pick out a gun, fill out the paperwork, wait for the NICS check to clear



11,000 gun homicides and 19,500 suicides say otherwise.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because banning illegal drugs has stopped their use completely, hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly has reduced the problem from when I was growing up.
Click to expand...

You obviously live in a vacuum!!!


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> 11,000 gun homicides and 19,500 suicides say otherwise.



Your idiocy proves my point.  people willing to go through the steps to buy a gun legally are not going to "cool off" with a waiting period

a right delayed is a right denied.  there is no legitimate reason for a waiting period

given an asshole like you wants to ban gun ownership  and you support a waiting period, it proves that you intend that said waiting period be used to harass lawful gun owners


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 11,000 gun homicides and 19,500 suicides say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiocy proves my point.  people willing to go through the steps to buy a gun legally are not going to "cool off" with a waiting period
> 
> a right delayed is a right denied.  there is no legitimate reason for a waiting period
> 
> given an asshole like you wants to ban gun ownership  and you support a waiting period, it proves that you intend that said waiting period be used to harass lawful gun owners
Click to expand...


"Cooling off" period is bull.  Anyone who would think of buying a gun and killing other people is nuts, and more than likely if the person is taking steps to actually obtain the weapon, then there will be no "cooling off."


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> "Cooling off" period is bull. Anyone who would think of buying a gun and killing other people is nuts, and more than likely if the person is taking steps to actually obtain the weapon, then there will be no "cooling off."



Anyone who would think of buying a gun at all is nuts. 

The best argument for gun control is to let the gun nuts talk. 

That aside.  Guy finds out his wife is cheating on him. He goes out, buys a gun, shoots her boyfriend.  

Or he is forced to wait a week, maybe he works it out, maybe he sees a divorce lawyer, maybe he realized the bitch was no good to start with.  

But in the immortal words of Homer Simpson... "Waiting period? I'm mad now!"


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Cooling off" period is bull. Anyone who would think of buying a gun and killing other people is nuts, and more than likely if the person is taking steps to actually obtain the weapon, then there will be no "cooling off."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would think of buying a gun at all is nuts.
> 
> The best argument for gun control is to let the gun nuts talk.
> 
> That aside.  Guy finds out his wife is cheating on him. He goes out, buys a gun, shoots her boyfriend.
> 
> Or he is forced to wait a week, maybe he works it out, maybe he sees a divorce lawyer, maybe he realized the bitch was no good to start with.
> 
> But in the immortal words of Homer Simpson... "Waiting period? I'm mad now!"
Click to expand...


Or a woman finds out her boyfriend wants to kill her or that she has a stalker.   Sure she can defend herself....next week.

Which do you think is more common?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Or a woman finds out her boyfriend wants to kill her or that she has a stalker. Sure she can defend herself....next week.
> 
> Which do you think is more common?



Yeah, then she can have a gun her stalker can shoot her with - WHICH HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 

Women shooting their stalkers.  Not so much.  

Here's another story you won't see on the NRA website. 

Having a Gun in the House Doesn t Make a Woman Safer - The Atlantic

_Christy Salters Martin is a professional boxer and the owner of a concealed carry permit. But when she attempted to leave her husband, she was shot with her own gun. Today, she cautions other women against making the same mistake. “Just putting a weapon in the woman’s hand is not going to reduce the number of fatalities or gunshot victims that we have. Too many times, their male counterpart or spouse will be able to overpower them and take that gun away.”

It has long been recognized that higher rates of gun availability correlate with higher rates of female homicide. Women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world, even though they make up only a third of the developed world’s female population. And within American borders, women die at higher rates from suicide, homicide, and accidental firearm deaths in states where guns are more widely available. This is true even after controlling for factors such as urbanization, alcohol use, education, poverty, and divorce rates.  _

No problem... the NRA will just sell these ladies pink guns. That will do the trick.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or a woman finds out her boyfriend wants to kill her or that she has a stalker. Sure she can defend herself....next week.
> 
> Which do you think is more common?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, then she can have a gun her stalker can shoot her with - WHICH HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Women shooting their stalkers.  Not so much.
> 
> Here's another story you won't see on the NRA website.
> 
> Having a Gun in the House Doesn t Make a Woman Safer - The Atlantic
> 
> _Christy Salters Martin is a professional boxer and the owner of a concealed carry permit. But when she attempted to leave her husband, she was shot with her own gun. Today, she cautions other women against making the same mistake. “Just putting a weapon in the woman’s hand is not going to reduce the number of fatalities or gunshot victims that we have. Too many times, their male counterpart or spouse will be able to overpower them and take that gun away.”
> 
> It has long been recognized that higher rates of gun availability correlate with higher rates of female homicide. Women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world, even though they make up only a third of the developed world’s female population. And within American borders, women die at higher rates from suicide, homicide, and accidental firearm deaths in states where guns are more widely available. This is true even after controlling for factors such as urbanization, alcohol use, education, poverty, and divorce rates.  _
> 
> No problem... the NRA will just sell these ladies pink guns. That will do the trick.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't want the women to be able to protect themselves, would you?

Oh, and the NRA doesn't sell women guns.  They just make sure gov't worshipping wimps like you don't take away their right to own one.  And they provide more firearm training than anyone in the nation except the military.  So those women who were unable to use their gun, didn't store it properly, or did something stupid with it could certainly use the NRA courses.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Wouldn't want the women to be able to protect themselves, would you?



a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.  I knew a lady who bought a gun for protection and had to bury her teenage son after he shot himself with it.  

I know you don't consider this a big deal, but she did. 



WinterBorn said:


> Oh, and the NRA doesn't sell women guns. They just make sure gov't worshipping wimps like you don't take away their right to own one. And they provide more firearm training than anyone in the nation except the military. So those women who were unable to use their gun, didn't store it properly, or did something stupid with it could certainly use the NRA courses.



The NRA are shills for the gun industry and their desire to make sure every lunatic can get a gun, so everyone else will want one. 

Wasn't always that way.  Back in the 1960's, they helped draft gun control laws after we had riots and assassinations.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't want the women to be able to protect themselves, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.  I knew a lady who bought a gun for protection and had to bury her teenage son after he shot himself with it.
> 
> I know you don't consider this a big deal, but she did.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the NRA doesn't sell women guns. They just make sure gov't worshipping wimps like you don't take away their right to own one. And they provide more firearm training than anyone in the nation except the military. So those women who were unable to use their gun, didn't store it properly, or did something stupid with it could certainly use the NRA courses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA are shills for the gun industry and their desire to make sure every lunatic can get a gun, so everyone else will want one.
> 
> Wasn't always that way.  Back in the 1960's, they helped draft gun control laws after we had riots and assassinations.
Click to expand...


And a gun is far more likely to not be used to kill anyone, by a huge margin.   More than 99.9% of guns in homes are never used to shoot anyone.

No, I do consider it a big deal.  You are the one who thinks its ok for certain people to be murdered.

And if her son wanted to commit suicide, he would have done it without a gun.  If it was an accidental shooting, then she was an idiot for not properly storing her firearm.  But then, you always seem to have these "I knew someone..." stories.  I'll give you credit for being inventive.  You aren't truthful, but you ARE inventive.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Cooling off" period is bull. Anyone who would think of buying a gun and killing other people is nuts, and more than likely if the person is taking steps to actually obtain the weapon, then there will be no "cooling off."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would think of buying a gun at all is nuts.
> 
> The best argument for gun control is to let the gun nuts talk.
> 
> That aside.  Guy finds out his wife is cheating on him. He goes out, buys a gun, shoots her boyfriend.
> 
> Or he is forced to wait a week, maybe he works it out, maybe he sees a divorce lawyer, maybe he realized the bitch was no good to start with.
> 
> But in the immortal words of Homer Simpson... "Waiting period? I'm mad now!"
Click to expand...


No, there are plenty of legal uses for guns, such as competition shooting and self defense.  Sorry that you are a paranoid schizophrenic.  A psychiatrist can help you with that.  

If there are any "gun nuts" it would be you and people like you.  You are utterly ridiculous.  

Maybe he stabs the boyfriend, maybe he beats him to death . . .   Absolutely pointless, is what you are.  

There are ALREADY background checks.  What is WRONG with you?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No, there are plenty of legal uses for guns, such as competition shooting and self defense.  Sorry that you are a paranoid schizophrenic.  A psychiatrist can help you with that.
> 
> If there are any "gun nuts" it would be you and people like you.  You are utterly ridiculous.
> 
> Maybe he stabs the boyfriend, maybe he beats him to death . . . Absolutely pointless, is what you are.
> 
> There are ALREADY background checks.  What is WRONG with you?



Background checks that apparently said a guy who thought he was the fucking Joker could have a machine gun... are totally inadequate.

We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. That's what's ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are plenty of legal uses for guns, such as competition shooting and self defense.  Sorry that you are a paranoid schizophrenic.  A psychiatrist can help you with that.
> 
> If there are any "gun nuts" it would be you and people like you.  You are utterly ridiculous.
> 
> Maybe he stabs the boyfriend, maybe he beats him to death . . . Absolutely pointless, is what you are.
> 
> There are ALREADY background checks.  What is WRONG with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks that apparently said a guy who thought he was the fucking Joker could have a machine gun... are totally inadequate.
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. That's what's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


There was no information on him because the mental health professionals didn't do their job.  

And the idea that you can tell someone is crazy by having them fill out a form shows that you know as much about this as you do about what constitutes a "machinegun".


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> There was no information on him because the mental health professionals didn't do their job.
> 
> And the idea that you can tell someone is crazy by having them fill out a form shows that you know as much about this as you do about what constitutes a "machinegun".



There was no information on him because no one bothered to look for it.  

When someone did, namely the media, yup, everyone  in his life, including HIS MOTHER, said he was crazy.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no information on him because the mental health professionals didn't do their job.
> 
> And the idea that you can tell someone is crazy by having them fill out a form shows that you know as much about this as you do about what constitutes a "machinegun".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no information on him because no one bothered to look for it.
> 
> When someone did, namely the media, yup, everyone  in his life, including HIS MOTHER, said he was crazy.
Click to expand...


You cannot be this dense.  If nobody documented it and it wasn't put into the system, then there is no way no one could know!  Please!  Try to use your brain for once!


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are plenty of legal uses for guns, such as competition shooting and self defense.  Sorry that you are a paranoid schizophrenic.  A psychiatrist can help you with that.
> 
> If there are any "gun nuts" it would be you and people like you.  You are utterly ridiculous.
> 
> Maybe he stabs the boyfriend, maybe he beats him to death . . . Absolutely pointless, is what you are.
> 
> There are ALREADY background checks.  What is WRONG with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks that apparently said a guy who thought he was the fucking Joker could have a machine gun... are totally inadequate.
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. That's what's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


And MANY more people have defended themselves using a firearm.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> You cannot be this dense. If nobody documented it and it wasn't put into the system, then there is no way no one could know! Please! Try to use your brain for once!



Again, the media was able to find out that he was as crazy as batshit within hours of the shooting. 

Hours. 

The information was there.  Nobody looked for it.  



ChrisL said:


> And MANY more people have defended themselves using a firearm.



Not really.  When you estimate something with a range of 65,000 to 5 million, but can only document 200 deaths in self-defense, that becomes kind of dubious.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be this dense. If nobody documented it and it wasn't put into the system, then there is no way no one could know! Please! Try to use your brain for once!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the media was able to find out that he was as crazy as batshit within hours of the shooting.
> 
> Hours.
> 
> The information was there.  Nobody looked for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And MANY more people have defended themselves using a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  When you estimate something with a range of 65,000 to 5 million, but can only document 200 deaths in self-defense, that becomes kind of dubious.
Click to expand...


It's not 65,000 to 5 million, as you've been told DOZENS of times.  It is 500,000 to 2.5 million.  Get your facts straight.  

No, the information was not there.  The media found out through other sources, like the police reports, etc.  Not only that, but there is a little thing called doctor/patient confidentiality.  If you really want to "blame" someone, blame that nut's psychiatrist for not locking him up.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't want the women to be able to protect themselves, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.  I knew a lady who bought a gun for protection and had to bury her teenage son after he shot himself with it.
> 
> I know you don't consider this a big deal, but she did.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the NRA doesn't sell women guns. They just make sure gov't worshipping wimps like you don't take away their right to own one. And they provide more firearm training than anyone in the nation except the military. So those women who were unable to use their gun, didn't store it properly, or did something stupid with it could certainly use the NRA courses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA are shills for the gun industry and their desire to make sure every lunatic can get a gun, so everyone else will want one.
> 
> Wasn't always that way.  Back in the 1960's, they helped draft gun control laws after we had riots and assassinations.
Click to expand...







Which is a lie that has been debunked time and time again.  You're simply a liar.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> It's not 65,000 to 5 million, as you've been told DOZENS of times. It is 500,000 to 2.5 million. Get your facts straight.



Depends entirely which source you cite.  The problem is, the standard is completely subjective.  I find even the 65,000 figure rather implausible just by virtue of the fact that the one thing you can quantify- perpertrators killed by civilians in justified homicides - is pretty low- about 200 a year according to the FBI.  

So even using the low 65K number, you'd have to believe that the bad guys got out of a deadly force situation 99.7% of the time.  You'd have to believe that thousands of murderous, drug addled thugs are intimidated by someone holding a gun in a shaking hand.  



ChrisL said:


> No, the information was not there. The media found out through other sources, like the police reports, etc. Not only that, but there is a little thing called doctor/patient confidentiality. If you really want to "blame" someone, blame that nut's psychiatrist for not locking him up.



No, I blame the gun industry for making guns so accessible that someone as disturbed as Holmes had no problem getting one. Could we do mental health better?  Yes. If Republicans were willing to spend more and Democrats weren't so hung up on hurting the feelings of the mentally ill, we could.  But until we do, letting them walk into a gun store and buy a gun designed to fight the Vietnam War is a pretty stupid idea, don't you think.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 65,000 to 5 million, as you've been told DOZENS of times. It is 500,000 to 2.5 million. Get your facts straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends entirely which source you cite.  The problem is, the standard is completely subjective.  I find even the 65,000 figure rather implausible just by virtue of the fact that the one thing you can quantify- perpertrators killed by civilians in justified homicides - is pretty low- about 200 a year according to the FBI.
> 
> So even using the low 65K number, you'd have to believe that the bad guys got out of a deadly force situation 99.7% of the time.  You'd have to believe that thousands of murderous, drug addled thugs are intimidated by someone holding a gun in a shaking hand.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the information was not there. The media found out through other sources, like the police reports, etc. Not only that, but there is a little thing called doctor/patient confidentiality. If you really want to "blame" someone, blame that nut's psychiatrist for not locking him up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I blame the gun industry for making guns so accessible that someone as disturbed as Holmes had no problem getting one. Could we do mental health better?  Yes. If Republicans were willing to spend more and Democrats weren't so hung up on hurting the feelings of the mentally ill, we could.  But until we do, letting them walk into a gun store and buy a gun designed to fight the Vietnam War is a pretty stupid idea, don't you think.
Click to expand...


It isn't that many, Joe.  Out of 320,000,000 people, 2.5 million (the high end) is less than 1% of the entire population, and the figures I quoted also include crimes that were not necessarily reported.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 65,000 to 5 million, as you've been told DOZENS of times. It is 500,000 to 2.5 million. Get your facts straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends entirely which source you cite.  The problem is, the standard is completely subjective.  I find even the 65,000 figure rather implausible just by virtue of the fact that the one thing you can quantify- perpertrators killed by civilians in justified homicides - is pretty low- about 200 a year according to the FBI.
> 
> So even using the low 65K number, you'd have to believe that the bad guys got out of a deadly force situation 99.7% of the time.  You'd have to believe that thousands of murderous, drug addled thugs are intimidated by someone holding a gun in a shaking hand.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the information was not there. The media found out through other sources, like the police reports, etc. Not only that, but there is a little thing called doctor/patient confidentiality. If you really want to "blame" someone, blame that nut's psychiatrist for not locking him up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I blame the gun industry for making guns so accessible that someone as disturbed as Holmes had no problem getting one. Could we do mental health better?  Yes. If Republicans were willing to spend more and Democrats weren't so hung up on hurting the feelings of the mentally ill, we could.  But until we do, letting them walk into a gun store and buy a gun designed to fight the Vietnam War is a pretty stupid idea, don't you think.
Click to expand...


It is a right.  It is supposed to easily accessible.  We don't revoke rights because of a couple rejects and their actions.  Yes, SOME people are going to abuse their rights.  That is why we have a criminal justice system.


----------



## WinterBorn

They dif


JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no information on him because the mental health professionals didn't do their job.
> 
> And the idea that you can tell someone is crazy by having them fill out a form shows that you know as much about this as you do about what constitutes a "machinegun".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no information on him because no one bothered to look for it.
> 
> When someone did, namely the media, yup, everyone  in his life, including HIS MOTHER, said he was crazy.
Click to expand...


All they had to do aS submit the data like they were supposed to do.

Everyone came out after, but no one said a word before.  Send the mother & all those who sat idly by to prison.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Anyone who would think of buying a gun at all is nuts.
> 
> The best argument for gun control is to let the gun nuts talk.
> 
> That aside.  Guy finds out his wife is cheating on him. He goes out, buys a gun, shoots her boyfriend.
> 
> Or he is forced to wait a week, maybe he works it out, maybe he sees a divorce lawyer, maybe he realized the bitch was no good to start with.
> 
> But in the immortal words of Homer Simpson... "Waiting period? I'm mad now!"



you just make this crap up.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> It isn't that many, Joe. Out of 320,000,000 people, 2.5 million (the high end) is less than 1% of the entire population, and the figures I quoted also include crimes that were not necessarily reported.



EXCEPT- that's 1% every year. Over 30 years, that would be 30% of the population, or one out of three people you would know had an experience where they chased off a bad guy with a gun and didn't have to shoot him.  

I'm 53 years old and I know a lot of gun owners. I don't know one who ever had to use his gun defensively.  I do know THREE who had family members killed with guns (One murder and two suicides.)


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> All they had to do aS submit the data like they were supposed to do.
> 
> Everyone came out after, but no one said a word before. Send the mother & all those who sat idly by to prison.



His mother and his doctors weren't the ones who gave him a machine gun. 

Holmes without a machine gun is harmless.
Holmes with a machine gun kills or wounds 82 people.

And put a gun dealer in jail, the next one WILL call his mom.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> you just make this crap up.



11,000 gun homicides a year. I wish I was making this shit up.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All they had to do aS submit the data like they were supposed to do.
> 
> Everyone came out after, but no one said a word before. Send the mother & all those who sat idly by to prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His mother and his doctors weren't the ones who gave him a machine gun.
> 
> Holmes without a machine gun is harmless.
> Holmes with a machine gun kills or wounds 82 people.
> 
> And put a gun dealer in jail, the next one WILL call his mom.
Click to expand...


Put some mental health professional in jail for dereliction of duty and the next one will report his crazy patient to the database.  There is no way a dealer is derelict.  He got the approval of the federal government.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make this crap up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11,000 gun homicides a year. I wish I was making this shit up.
Click to expand...


And what percentage of those homicides were committed by legal gun owners?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All they had to do aS submit the data like they were supposed to do.
> 
> Everyone came out after, but no one said a word before. Send the mother & all those who sat idly by to prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His mother and his doctors weren't the ones who gave him a machine gun.
> 
> Holmes without a machine gun is harmless.
> Holmes with a machine gun kills or wounds 82 people.
> 
> And put a gun dealer in jail, the next one WILL call his mom.
Click to expand...


Someone sold Holmes a machine?  Wow!   Good thing he didn't have it with him, huh?   All he had was a semi-auto rifle, a shotgun and a Glock.  And the rifle jammed after firing only a few rounds.

So where did he buy the machine gun?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Put some mental health professional in jail for dereliction of duty and the next one will report his crazy patient to the database. There is no way a dealer is derelict. He got the approval of the federal government.



I don't care if he got a stone tablet signed by God.  He sold a gun to an obviously crazy person.  He should go to prison.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> And what percentage of those homicides were committed by legal gun owners?



I debunked the whole gang thing pages ago, guy.  Most gun homicides are done by legal gun owners.

Okay, let's try this again.  The typical argument by the gun nuts is that '80% of gun homicides are gang related"  -  Translation - "It's just the Darkies killing each other, so it's okay."  

Now as horrible and racist as that thinking is, it also has the vice of NOT BEING TRUE.  

Request Rejected


The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
Did we get that?   The majority of homicides are not committed by gang members.  

However, the majority of homicides ARE committed by gun owners, as of that 15,500 homicides, 11,000 are committed with guns.  

So, no, it isn't the gangbanger you have to worry about.  It's more than likely your neighbor or your significant other.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put some mental health professional in jail for dereliction of duty and the next one will report his crazy patient to the database. There is no way a dealer is derelict. He got the approval of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if he got a stone tablet signed by God.  He sold a gun to an obviously crazy person.  He should go to prison.
Click to expand...


I don't care what sort of lunacy you espouse, the mental health professionals were derelict in their duty and should be held responsible.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what percentage of those homicides were committed by legal gun owners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I debunked the whole gang thing pages ago, guy.  Most gun homicides are done by legal gun owners.
> 
> Okay, let's try this again.  The typical argument by the gun nuts is that '80% of gun homicides are gang related"  -  Translation - "It's just the Darkies killing each other, so it's okay."
> 
> Now as horrible and racist as that thinking is, it also has the vice of NOT BEING TRUE.
> 
> Request Rejected
> 
> 
> The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
> Did we get that?   The majority of homicides are not committed by gang members.
> 
> However, the majority of homicides ARE committed by gun owners, as of that 15,500 homicides, 11,000 are committed with guns.
> 
> So, no, it isn't the gangbanger you have to worry about.  It's more than likely your neighbor or your significant other.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that anyone who isn't a gang member is a legal gun owner?  Really?   And you have the audacity to call me racist?  lmao


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> I don't care what sort of lunacy you espouse, the mental health professionals were derelict in their duty and should be held responsible.



So where the gun dealers.  The problem is, with gun dealers, dereliction isn't a design flaw, it's a design feature.  



WinterBorn said:


> So you are saying that anyone who isn't a gang member is a legal gun owner? Really? And you have the audacity to call me racist? lmao



Why would anyone need to be an "illegal" gun owner when guns are so fucking easy to get? 

Here's the real problem.  Most gun homicides are domestic disputes. It's why we have 15,000+ murders while other industrialized countries only have hundreds.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what sort of lunacy you espouse, the mental health professionals were derelict in their duty and should be held responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where the gun dealers.  The problem is, with gun dealers, dereliction isn't a design flaw, it's a design feature.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that anyone who isn't a gang member is a legal gun owner? Really? And you have the audacity to call me racist? lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone need to be an "illegal" gun owner when guns are so fucking easy to get?
> 
> Here's the real problem.  Most gun homicides are domestic disputes. It's why we have 15,000+ murders while other industrialized countries only have hundreds.
Click to expand...


No, the background check for buying a gun relies on mental health professionals reporting the lunatics they treat.  You think its ok that they ignore this requirement and responsibility.

Between the mental health professionals and the gun store clerk, there are differences.

One is required to report dangerous crazies to the system setup to stop those crazies from buying a gun.  The other is required to use the system to check whether or not the person purchasing a gun is a felon, domestic abuser, or crazy.  You want to blame the gun store clerk because the information is not in the system, but are just fine with the mental health professionals not putting it in the system.   Can you see the hypocrisy there?


----------



## WinterBorn

But then, given your insistence that Holmes had a "machine gun", I can see why facts aren't something you worry too much about.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> No, the background check for buying a gun relies on mental health professionals reporting the lunatics they treat. You think its ok that they ignore this requirement and responsibility.



No, I think they need to go a little further and practice a bit of common sense. Someone comes in for just a target pistol, that's one thing, and the background check if probably fine.  Someone comes in for a Semi-Automatic Rifle and a 100 round magazine, that's someone who is looking to do some serious mayhem. That's when you ask a few more questions. 

Unless your industry goal is to keep as many people scared as humanly possible so they all want guns, too.  



WinterBorn said:


> One is required to report dangerous crazies to the system setup to stop those crazies from buying a gun. The other is required to use the system to check whether or not the person purchasing a gun is a felon, domestic abuser, or crazy. You want to blame the gun store clerk because the information is not in the system, but are just fine with the mental health professionals not putting it in the system. Can you see the hypocrisy there?



Uh, no, actually, I don't.  Mostly because the mental health official didn't give Holmes the capability to kill dozens of people. The gun dealer did.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the background check for buying a gun relies on mental health professionals reporting the lunatics they treat. You think its ok that they ignore this requirement and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think they need to go a little further and practice a bit of common sense. Someone comes in for just a target pistol, that's one thing, and the background check if probably fine.  Someone comes in for a Semi-Automatic Rifle and a 100 round magazine, that's someone who is looking to do some serious mayhem. That's when you ask a few more questions.
> 
> Unless your industry goal is to keep as many people scared as humanly possible so they all want guns, too.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> One is required to report dangerous crazies to the system setup to stop those crazies from buying a gun. The other is required to use the system to check whether or not the person purchasing a gun is a felon, domestic abuser, or crazy. You want to blame the gun store clerk because the information is not in the system, but are just fine with the mental health professionals not putting it in the system. Can you see the hypocrisy there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, actually, I don't.  Mostly because the mental health official didn't give Holmes the capability to kill dozens of people. The gun dealer did.
Click to expand...


What requires common sense is to look more closely at your claims.  You have your panties in a wad over Holmes buying the rifle and 100 round magazine.  But the rifle jammed after only firing a few rounds.  Most of the killing was done with the shotgun and Glock.  Those you don't seem as worried about.  Much like your claim that the civilian AR "looks just like the rifle you had in the Army", it is not the actual death and mayhem you are whining about.  It is nonsense.

Since the sale of a firearm from a dealer requires that the person pass the background check, the mental health professional's dereliction of duty directly resulted in Holmes being able to buy a firearm.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> What requires common sense is to look more closely at your claims. You have your panties in a wad over Holmes buying the rifle and 100 round magazine. But the rifle jammed after only firing a few rounds.



COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!! Are you saying you are sad that he didn't kill more people, because that was certainly his intent.  

Seriously, nowhere do you have a complete disaster where "Well, I followed the rules" becomes an acceptable excuse.  People have been FIRED for a lot less.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What requires common sense is to look more closely at your claims. You have your panties in a wad over Holmes buying the rifle and 100 round magazine. But the rifle jammed after only firing a few rounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!! Are you saying you are sad that he didn't kill more people, because that was certainly his intent.
> 
> Seriously, nowhere do you have a complete disaster where "Well, I followed the rules" becomes an acceptable excuse.  People have been FIRED for a lot less.
Click to expand...


Completely fucking relevant.  It shows that you are concerned about what it looks like, as opposed to any actual danger.

And no where did you have someone go to prison when laws were not broken.   No laws were broken in the sale of the gun.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Completely fucking relevant. It shows that you are concerned about what it looks like, as opposed to any actual danger.
> 
> And no where did you have someone go to prison when laws were not broken. No laws were broken in the sale of the gun.



Accessory to murder was breaking a law, last time I checked.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely fucking relevant. It shows that you are concerned about what it looks like, as opposed to any actual danger.
> 
> And no where did you have someone go to prison when laws were not broken. No laws were broken in the sale of the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accessory to murder was breaking a law, last time I checked.
Click to expand...


The clerk is not an accessory to murder.   

Here is the definition:  "A person charged with aiding and abetting or *accessory* is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support."

The gun clerk did none of that.   In fact, the clerk did as the law requires and checked the database to see if Holmes had any felony record or had been judged insane.  The system said he hadn't.  Know why?  Because the mental health professionals were derelict in their duty and ignored a dangerous madman.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The clerk is not an accessory to murder.
> 
> Here is the definition: "A person charged with aiding and abetting or *accessory* is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support."
> 
> The gun clerk did none of that. In fact, the clerk did as the law requires and checked the database to see if Holmes had any felony record or had been judged insane. The system said he hadn't. Know why? Because the mental health professionals were derelict in their duty and ignored a dangerous madman.



Guy, "I did the bare minimum" doesn't cut it.  The Gun Industry has been singing that song since JFK was shot.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk is not an accessory to murder.
> 
> Here is the definition: "A person charged with aiding and abetting or *accessory* is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support."
> 
> The gun clerk did none of that. In fact, the clerk did as the law requires and checked the database to see if Holmes had any felony record or had been judged insane. The system said he hadn't. Know why? Because the mental health professionals were derelict in their duty and ignored a dangerous madman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, "I did the bare minimum" doesn't cut it.  The Gun Industry has been singing that song since JFK was shot.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does cut it.  The law requires that gun dealers follow certain procedures.  They did that.

The law also requires that the mental health professionals follow certain procedures.  They did NOT do that.


----------



## 2aguy

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The clerk is not an accessory to murder.
> 
> Here is the definition: "A person charged with aiding and abetting or *accessory* is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support."
> 
> The gun clerk did none of that. In fact, the clerk did as the law requires and checked the database to see if Holmes had any felony record or had been judged insane. The system said he hadn't. Know why? Because the mental health professionals were derelict in their duty and ignored a dangerous madman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, "I did the bare minimum" doesn't cut it.  The Gun Industry has been singing that song since JFK was shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does cut it.  The law requires that gun dealers follow certain procedures.  They did that.
> 
> The law also requires that the mental health professionals follow certain procedures.  They did NOT do that.
Click to expand...



And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, it does cut it. The law requires that gun dealers follow certain procedures. They did that.
> 
> The law also requires that the mental health professionals follow certain procedures. They did NOT do that.



Then the law is fucked up.   sorry, dude, it just is. 

But this is the problem when you claim the ability to kill other people is a "right".


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....



32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.  

Sounds kind of like they are.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does cut it. The law requires that gun dealers follow certain procedures. They did that.
> 
> The law also requires that the mental health professionals follow certain procedures. They did NOT do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the law is fucked up.   sorry, dude, it just is.
> 
> But this is the problem when you claim the ability to kill other people is a "right".
Click to expand...


Once again you try using lies as an argument.

No one is claiming the right to kill people.   There is a right to defend yourself, but that is a completely different matter.

And it is funny that you think the law is "fucked up" when it requires that mental health professionals submit the names of the crazies to the system.  But you expect a gun store clerk to be able to diagnose mental illnesses.   It is obvious you are far more interested in disarming the population than in saving lives.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Sounds kind of like they are.
Click to expand...


Sounds kinda like they are?    0.0015% of privately owned guns commit murders.  That sounds pretty much like they are not.

But "Sounds kinda like they are" is just like "Looks just like the one they issued me in the Army".   Worthless statements.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Sounds kind of like they are.
Click to expand...


Joe....in 2013 there were exactly 505 accidental gun deaths, and according to the FBI table 8, 8,454 gun murders.....

Guns are least of our worries.....try these...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars,  Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208


*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...*606*
2011...*591*
2012...*548*
2013...*505
*
In a country of over 320 million people 505 deaths are tragic.....but not a problem worth destroying a Right over.....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Sounds kind of like they are.
Click to expand...




> 300,000 gun crimes.



And of course you ignore the research...40 years of research by actual criminologists, and economists both private and public...many of whom are as anti gun as you are joe....who have found that guns are at a minimum used 764,000 times a year to stop violent crime and save lives and taken together, the studies show when averaged that violent criminals are stopped 2 million times a year.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Sounds kind of like they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course you ignore the research...40 years of research by actual criminologists, and economists both private and public...many of whom are as anti gun as you are joe....who have found that guns are at a minimum used 764,000 times a year to stop violent crime and save lives and taken together, the studies show when averaged that violent criminals are stopped 2 million times a year.....
Click to expand...



Yup!

And....licensed gun owners don't commit crimes.



Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (That's .00086%)


----------



## 2aguy

PoliticalChic said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Sounds kind of like they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course you ignore the research...40 years of research by actual criminologists, and economists both private and public...many of whom are as anti gun as you are joe....who have found that guns are at a minimum used 764,000 times a year to stop violent crime and save lives and taken together, the studies show when averaged that violent criminals are stopped 2 million times a year.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup!
> 
> And....licensed gun owners don't commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (That's .00086%)
Click to expand...


And how many were crimes and how many were carrying in the wrong place, a place with a sticker or other non crime that most people consider actual gun crimes...like using it to rob a convenience store.......


----------



## 2aguy

PoliticalChic said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Sounds kind of like they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course you ignore the research...40 years of research by actual criminologists, and economists both private and public...many of whom are as anti gun as you are joe....who have found that guns are at a minimum used 764,000 times a year to stop violent crime and save lives and taken together, the studies show when averaged that violent criminals are stopped 2 million times a year.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup!
> 
> And....licensed gun owners don't commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (That's .00086%)
Click to expand...



And licensed gun owners/carriers are more law abiding than sworn police officers...

CPRC in Fox News Police are extremely Law-abiding but concealed handgun permit holders are even more so - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org



> Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding.  Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police. . . .


----------



## PoliticalChic

2aguy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, gun dealers have called the police and federal authorities on people they know were up to no good...and they don't get credit for it....a guy from canada with a fake I.D. just got stopped because a gun dealer was suspicious....and there are cases of this all the time...you just don't hear about them.......it wrecks the meme that gun dealers are just handing guns out to criminals like candy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries.  300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Sounds kind of like they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course you ignore the research...40 years of research by actual criminologists, and economists both private and public...many of whom are as anti gun as you are joe....who have found that guns are at a minimum used 764,000 times a year to stop violent crime and save lives and taken together, the studies show when averaged that violent criminals are stopped 2 million times a year.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yup!
> 
> And....licensed gun owners don't commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (That's .00086%)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many were crimes and how many were carrying in the wrong place, a place with a sticker or other non crime that most people consider actual gun crimes...like using it to rob a convenience store.......
Click to expand...




Yet the sheer undeniable mathematical proof will not convince those indoctrinated to waive thinking in favor of big government infallibility.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Once again you try using lies as an argument.
> 
> No one is claiming the right to kill people. There is a right to defend yourself, but that is a completely different matter.
> 
> And it is funny that you think the law is "fucked up" when it requires that mental health professionals submit the names of the crazies to the system. But you expect a gun store clerk to be able to diagnose mental illnesses. It is obvious you are far more interested in disarming the population than in saving lives.



i expect the gun industry to stop marketting to crazy people.  

Until they pay some fines and few of them go to jail, they will keep doing it.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And of course you ignore the research...40 years of research by actual criminologists, and economists both private and public...many of whom are as anti gun as you are joe....who have found that guns are at a minimum used 764,000 times a year to stop violent crime and save lives and taken together, the studies show when averaged that violent criminals are stopped 2 million times a year.....



GUy, DGU's are horseshit, which is why I ignore any claims about them.  

I know three people killed by guns. 

I know ZERO saved by them.


----------



## JoeB131

PoliticalChic said:


> Yet the sheer undeniable mathematical proof will not convince those indoctrinated to waive thinking in favor of big government infallibility.



Political Spice, every other developed country either bans private gun ownership or severely limits it. 

They have a tiny fraction of our crime rate.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you try using lies as an argument.
> 
> No one is claiming the right to kill people. There is a right to defend yourself, but that is a completely different matter.
> 
> And it is funny that you think the law is "fucked up" when it requires that mental health professionals submit the names of the crazies to the system. But you expect a gun store clerk to be able to diagnose mental illnesses. It is obvious you are far more interested in disarming the population than in saving lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i expect the gun industry to stop marketting to crazy people.
> 
> Until they pay some fines and few of them go to jail, they will keep doing it.
Click to expand...


If the mental health professionals you are defending would put the names in the database, those crazies couldn't buy from dealers.  Simple solution.  And no one markets to crazies.  That is just more of your lying.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the sheer undeniable mathematical proof will not convince those indoctrinated to waive thinking in favor of big government infallibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Spice, every other developed country either bans private gun ownership or severely limits it.
> 
> They have a tiny fraction of our crime rate.
Click to expand...


Many developed countries have total number of murders that are a fraction of what we have that do not involve guns.  Which proves that guns are not the problem, it is the violent culture we live in.  You know, the one where you cheer union thugs beating people up and cheer federal agents murdering unarmed women??


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> EXCEPT- that's 1% every year. Over 30 years, that would be 30% of the population, or one out of three people you would know had an experience where they chased off a bad guy with a gun and didn't have to shoot him.
> 
> I'm 53 years old and I know a lot of gun owners. I don't know one who ever had to use his gun defensively.  I do know THREE who had family members killed with guns (One murder and two suicides.)




Chris knows me-she knows I shot a mugger.  I stopped another guy from breaking into my apartment.  I stopped some assholes trying to break into my parent's house as well

Pistol Pistol, 12 G Ithaca 37 shotgun

I know two people who killed themselves

one "gorged out" into the rocks and another ate a shotgun.,


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> [
> Completely fucking relevant.  It shows that you are concerned about what it looks like, as opposed to any actual danger.
> 
> And no where did you have someone go to prison when laws were not broken.   No laws were broken in the sale of the gun.


Why argue with JoeBanner when crime control has nothing to do with his motivation. He is still squirming in his soiled panties over Bush winning twice and he blames gun owners for keeping Gorebot and Kerry out of the white house


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> If the mental health professionals you are defending would put the names in the database, those crazies couldn't buy from dealers. Simple solution. And no one markets to crazies. That is just more of your lying.



are you kidding. "Consider your man card reissued". Who do you think that appeals to?


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Chris knows me-she knows I shot a mugger. I stopped another guy from breaking into my apartment. I stopped some assholes trying to break into my parent's house as well



So if true, no one who was actually a dangerous criminal. Which it probably isn't.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Many developed countries have total number of murders that are a fraction of what we have that do not involve guns. Which proves that guns are not the problem, it is the violent culture we live in. You know, the one where you cheer union thugs beating people up and cheer federal agents murdering unarmed women??



You mean Scabs and Nazis?  Yeah, I have no problem when they get whats coming to 'em.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Why argue with JoeBanner when crime control has nothing to do with his motivation. He is still squirming in his soiled panties over Bush winning twice and he blames gun owners for keeping Gorebot and Kerry out of the white house



No, I blame the Homophobes for 2004.  The gun nuts were responsible for 2000. 

The Homophobes have been defeated.  Heh, heh, heh.   Gay marriage is legal and those fucks got to bake that cake.  

We're coming for the gun nuts next.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mental health professionals you are defending would put the names in the database, those crazies couldn't buy from dealers. Simple solution. And no one markets to crazies. That is just more of your lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you kidding. "Consider your man card reissued". Who do you think that appeals to?
Click to expand...


Do you think Holmes was after his manliness?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why argue with JoeBanner when crime control has nothing to do with his motivation. He is still squirming in his soiled panties over Bush winning twice and he blames gun owners for keeping Gorebot and Kerry out of the white house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I blame the Homophobes for 2004.  The gun nuts were responsible for 2000.
> 
> The Homophobes have been defeated.  Heh, heh, heh.   Gay marriage is legal and those fucks got to bake that cake.
> 
> We're coming for the gun nuts next.
Click to expand...


You were responsible for 2000 as well.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many developed countries have total number of murders that are a fraction of what we have that do not involve guns. Which proves that guns are not the problem, it is the violent culture we live in. You know, the one where you cheer union thugs beating people up and cheer federal agents murdering unarmed women??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Scabs and Nazis?  Yeah, I have no problem when they get whats coming to 'em.
Click to expand...


And you are part of the violent culture that creates the number of murders we have.  So of us don't want anyone murdered.


----------



## WinterBorn

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Completely fucking relevant.  It shows that you are concerned about what it looks like, as opposed to any actual danger.
> 
> And no where did you have someone go to prison when laws were not broken.   No laws were broken in the sale of the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> Why argue with JoeBanner when crime control has nothing to do with his motivation. He is still squirming in his soiled panties over Bush winning twice and he blames gun owners for keeping Gorebot and Kerry out of the white house
Click to expand...


Eh, he is entertaining.  Watching him squirm, dance and lie to try and salvage his point is hilarious.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> You were responsible for 2000 as well.



Well, yes and no.  Yes, I voted for him. No, because I live in IL, and IL was never in dispute. 

The gun nuts did flip TN, which cost Gore the presidency.  

The homophobes flipped Ohio, which cost Kerry the preisdency. We could have avoided 2008 if that hadn't happened.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Eh, he is entertaining. Watching him squirm, dance and lie to try and salvage his point is hilarious.



Right.  The fact is, you live in mortal fear that someone might take your guns.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were responsible for 2000 as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes and no.  Yes, I voted for him. No, because I live in IL, and IL was never in dispute.
> 
> The gun nuts did flip TN, which cost Gore the presidency.
> 
> The homophobes flipped Ohio, which cost Kerry the preisdency. We could have avoided 2008 if that hadn't happened.
Click to expand...


If you want to waste time rehashing old elections, feel free.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> And you are part of the violent culture that creates the number of murders we have. So of us don't want anyone murdered.



Uh, no,not really. The scabs don't cross picket lines, they don't get beaten up. 

The Nazis didn't shoot at Federal agents, they don't get wasted.  It's really not complicated.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, he is entertaining. Watching him squirm, dance and lie to try and salvage his point is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The fact is, you live in mortal fear that someone might take your guns.
Click to expand...


Mortal fear?  Nah.  I am not worried about a handful of impotent fools trying to rewrite the US Constitution.  You have tried numerous times and have failed in spectacular fashion.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> If you want to waste time rehashing old elections, feel free.



Uh, no, but it's important to understand for future elections.  Crush the stupids on the petty issues, Republicans will never win on the important issues.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Mortal fear? Nah. I am not worried about a handful of impotent fools trying to rewrite the US Constitution. You have tried numerous times and have failed in spectacular fashion.



Nah, you are terririfed the next Clown will roust this country from its slumber and the NRA can't frighten politicians into inaction.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are part of the violent culture that creates the number of murders we have. So of us don't want anyone murdered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no,not really. The scabs don't cross picket lines, they don't get beaten up.
> 
> The Nazis didn't shoot at Federal agents, they don't get wasted.  It's really not complicated.
Click to expand...


Yes really.  You are fine with violence when it suits you, and cry like a baby when it doesn't.

And if someone doesn't want the job, someone else can work it.
And you know as well as I do that the feds murdered two people who were no threat to them at all.  But you think thats all ok.  We call that hypocrisy.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mortal fear? Nah. I am not worried about a handful of impotent fools trying to rewrite the US Constitution. You have tried numerous times and have failed in spectacular fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, you are terririfed the next Clown will roust this country from its slumber and the NRA can't frighten politicians into inaction.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  The emotional, knee-jerk reactions don't actually get much done.  And most of my firearms are not the sort that people are afraid of based on appearance.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yes really. You are fine with violence when it suits you, and cry like a baby when it doesn't.
> 
> And if someone doesn't want the job, someone else can work it.
> And you know as well as I do that the feds murdered two people who were no threat to them at all. But you think thats all ok. We call that hypocrisy



Uh, no. They shot a family full of heavily armed Nazis who had ALREADY MURDERED A FEDERAL AGENT.  

They were given a chance to surrender peacefully and they didn't take it. 

YOu shoot cops or federal agents, you face the consequences.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Not at all. The emotional, knee-jerk reactions don't actually get much done. And most of my firearms are not the sort that people are afraid of based on appearance.



Oh, you guys were pissing yourselves after Sandy Hook.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes really. You are fine with violence when it suits you, and cry like a baby when it doesn't.
> 
> And if someone doesn't want the job, someone else can work it.
> And you know as well as I do that the feds murdered two people who were no threat to them at all. But you think thats all ok. We call that hypocrisy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no. They shot a family full of heavily armed Nazis who had ALREADY MURDERED A FEDERAL AGENT.
> 
> They were given a chance to surrender peacefully and they didn't take it.
> 
> YOu shoot cops or federal agents, you face the consequences.
Click to expand...


We have already been over this.  You cheer a sniper murdering a mother while she held a baby, and a teenage boy being shot in the back.  So you are part of the culture of violence.  Whatever window dressing you want to put on it or excuses you want to offer don't change that.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. The emotional, knee-jerk reactions don't actually get much done. And most of my firearms are not the sort that people are afraid of based on appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you guys were pissing yourselves after Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...


I felt bad for the families.  That was it.  No fear here.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, he is entertaining. Watching him squirm, dance and lie to try and salvage his point is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The fact is, you live in mortal fear that someone might take your guns.
Click to expand...


There have been people trying to ban private ownership of firearms for decades.   What have you managed to get done?  The Brady Bill?   It accomplished nothing and then died.   What else???   The background checks?  Sure, that sounded good.  But now you have to defend the incompetence and dereliction of duty of the mental health professionals when the system doesn't work.

I am not afraid of losing my guns.  The efforts of you gun-banning idiots has been positively laughable.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> We have already been over this. You cheer a sniper murdering a mother while she held a baby, and a teenage boy being shot in the back. So you are part of the culture of violence. Whatever window dressing you want to put on it or excuses you want to offer don't change that.



Yes, wh en you have Nazis stockpiling guns, I really, really expect the government to crack down on that sort of shit. 

If only the Weimar republic did that in 1926.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> There have been people trying to ban private ownership of firearms for decades. What have you managed to get done? The Brady Bill? It accomplished nothing and then died. What else??? The background checks? Sure, that sounded good. But now you have to defend the incompetence and dereliction of duty of the mental health professionals when the system doesn't work.



Guy, you are pissing yourself because even other gun owners think you are a nutty fringe.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been people trying to ban private ownership of firearms for decades. What have you managed to get done? The Brady Bill? It accomplished nothing and then died. What else??? The background checks? Sure, that sounded good. But now you have to defend the incompetence and dereliction of duty of the mental health professionals when the system doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are pissing yourself because even other gun owners think you are a nutty fringe.
Click to expand...


I don't think so.  Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are.  I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights?  Lol.  Obviously you need a babysitter.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already been over this. You cheer a sniper murdering a mother while she held a baby, and a teenage boy being shot in the back. So you are part of the culture of violence. Whatever window dressing you want to put on it or excuses you want to offer don't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, wh en you have Nazis stockpiling guns, I really, really expect the government to crack down on that sort of shit.
> 
> If only the Weimar republic did that in 1926.
Click to expand...


Fine.  But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility.   And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable.  If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted.  Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been people trying to ban private ownership of firearms for decades. What have you managed to get done? The Brady Bill? It accomplished nothing and then died. What else??? The background checks? Sure, that sounded good. But now you have to defend the incompetence and dereliction of duty of the mental health professionals when the system doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are pissing yourself because even other gun owners think you are a nutty fringe.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been people trying to ban private ownership of firearms for decades. What have you managed to get done? The Brady Bill? It accomplished nothing and then died. What else??? The background checks? Sure, that sounded good. But now you have to defend the incompetence and dereliction of duty of the mental health professionals when the system doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are pissing yourself because even other gun owners think you are a nutty fringe.
Click to expand...


Dude, you are grasping at straws now.  I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns.    I target shoot and hunt.   Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).

But the anti-gun nuts DO think you are either crazy or a troll.  The whole "send the gun dealer to prison" thing is laughable.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the sheer undeniable mathematical proof will not convince those indoctrinated to waive thinking in favor of big government infallibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Spice, every other developed country either bans private gun ownership or severely limits it.
> 
> They have a tiny fraction of our crime rate.
Click to expand...



Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice..........

You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I don't think so. Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are. I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights? Lol. Obviously you need a babysitter.



It's not a "right" I need, and the cost of it outweighs the value.  



WinterBorn said:


> Fine. But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility. And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable. If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted. Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.



Meaningless...  Point was, she was a Nazi and the world is better off she's taking a dirt nap. 



WinterBorn said:


> Dude, you are grasping at straws now. I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns. I target shoot and hunt. Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).



What is it about the gun nut that he needs to talk about his guns like they are his children? 



2aguy said:


> Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice...



They have a lower crime rate than we do.  For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night.      An American woman, not so much.  



2aguy said:


> You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....



NO, you really haven't seen it.  What you've seen is the end part of civil wars where everyone had too many guns, and they were looking for payback on their neighbors.


----------



## JoeB131

Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller. 

Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions

The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.

The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.

The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are. I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights? Lol. Obviously you need a babysitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "right" I need, and the cost of it outweighs the value.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility. And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable. If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted. Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless...  Point was, she was a Nazi and the world is better off she's taking a dirt nap.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are grasping at straws now. I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns. I target shoot and hunt. Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it about the gun nut that he needs to talk about his guns like they are his children?
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a lower crime rate than we do.  For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night.      An American woman, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, you really haven't seen it.  What you've seen is the end part of civil wars where everyone had too many guns, and they were looking for payback on their neighbors.
Click to expand...


That right is enjoyed by 100 million people.  The fact that fewer than 0.001% kill someone does not outweigh it.

The fact that she was not charged or tried before being executed means she was murdered.  That you celebrate that contributes to the overall violence of our culture.

What is it about you that make you lie?   There is nothing in the comment I made that even vaguely resembled talking about my guns like they are my children.  

Plenty of American women go out at night.  And if women going out at night is what you worry about, why are you wanting to disarm them?   The average man can completely overpower the average woman.

More drivel (and a lie) from the resident anti-gun loon.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.
> 
> Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions
> 
> The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.
> 
> The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.
> 
> The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
> 
> San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.



Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.

The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS.  No biggie.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> That right is enjoyed by 100 million people. The fact that fewer than 0.001% kill someone does not outweigh it.
> 
> The fact that she was not charged or tried before being executed means she was murdered. That you celebrate that contributes to the overall violence of our culture.



the sniper who shot her wasn't charged, either, so no.   

And I wasn't the one stockpiling weapons for the coming race war that never seems to get here. That was the Inbred Weaver family.  



WinterBorn said:


> Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.
> 
> The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS. No biggie.




Your boys are the NRA didn't think so.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That right is enjoyed by 100 million people. The fact that fewer than 0.001% kill someone does not outweigh it.
> 
> The fact that she was not charged or tried before being executed means she was murdered. That you celebrate that contributes to the overall violence of our culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the sniper who shot her wasn't charged, either, so no.
> 
> And I wasn't the one stockpiling weapons for the coming race war that never seems to get here. That was the Inbred Weaver family.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.
> 
> The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS. No biggie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your boys are the NRA didn't think so.
Click to expand...


The NRA fights what they perceive as restrictions that should not be there.

Heller was about not allowing citizens to own guns at all, and about the claim that the 2nd amendment did not apply to DC.  Very different.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are. I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights? Lol. Obviously you need a babysitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "right" I need, and the cost of it outweighs the value.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility. And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable. If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted. Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless...  Point was, she was a Nazi and the world is better off she's taking a dirt nap.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are grasping at straws now. I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns. I target shoot and hunt. Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it about the gun nut that he needs to talk about his guns like they are his children?
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a lower crime rate than we do.  For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night.      An American woman, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, you really haven't seen it.  What you've seen is the end part of civil wars where everyone had too many guns, and they were looking for payback on their neighbors.
Click to expand...




> They have a lower crime rate than we do.  For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night.      An American woman, not so much.



And the Japanese can search at any time for any reason and they can also search your house without a warrant and have yearly inspections of homes...they can hold you for questioning without letting you see a lawyer and can use physical abuse to get confessions and judges don't care........they live in a police state...of course assholes like you want a police state...you hate people....which you can tell from your posts, and anything that controls people you are for......


----------



## 2aguy

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.
> 
> Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions
> 
> The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.
> 
> The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.
> 
> The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
> 
> San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.
> 
> The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS.  No biggie.
Click to expand...


But it still needs to be overturned....


----------



## WinterBorn

2aguy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.
> 
> Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions
> 
> The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.
> 
> The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.
> 
> The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
> 
> San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.
> 
> The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS.  No biggie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it still needs to be overturned....
Click to expand...


Eh, I can see requiring safe storage if kids are in the home.   Nothing I saw about these laws surprised me, considering where they were.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And the Japanese can search at any time for any reason and they can also search your house without a warrant and have yearly inspections of homes...they can hold you for questioning without letting you see a lawyer and can use physical abuse to get confessions and judges don't care........they live in a police state...of course assholes like you want a police state...you hate people....which you can tell from your posts, and anything that controls people you are for......



They have a vastly more civil society than we have.  Not that it's perfect.  there's nowhere near the sexual equality we enjoy.  

But frankly, you can go out on the street at night and not have to worry about geting mugged. 

"Wahhhhh, the mean man doesn't want me to be able to threaten people wiht a gun!"


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Japanese can search at any time for any reason and they can also search your house without a warrant and have yearly inspections of homes...they can hold you for questioning without letting you see a lawyer and can use physical abuse to get confessions and judges don't care........they live in a police state...of course assholes like you want a police state...you hate people....which you can tell from your posts, and anything that controls people you are for......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a vastly more civil society than we have.  Not that it's perfect.  there's nowhere near the sexual equality we enjoy.
> 
> But frankly, you can go out on the street at night and not have to worry about geting mugged.
> 
> "Wahhhhh, the mean man doesn't want me to be able to threaten people wiht a gun!"
Click to expand...


so...thanks for the endorsement of the police state.......I don't remember...are you one of the morons bitching about stop and frisk......or how the police treat minorities?  I mean...if letting our police have the powers of Japanese police makes us safer....why not?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> so...thanks for the endorsement of the police state.......I don't remember...are you one of the morons bitching about stop and frisk......or how the police treat minorities? I mean...if letting our police have the powers of Japanese police makes us safer....why not?



Depends if they have "probable cause" or not.  I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black". 

But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year.  Tokyo is as big as New York.  They must be doing something right.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are. I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights? Lol. Obviously you need a babysitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "right" I need, and the cost of it outweighs the value.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility. And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable. If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted. Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless...  Point was, she was a Nazi and the world is better off she's taking a dirt nap.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are grasping at straws now. I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns. I target shoot and hunt. Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it about the gun nut that he needs to talk about his guns like they are his children?
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a lower crime rate than we do.  For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night.      An American woman, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, you really haven't seen it.  What you've seen is the end part of civil wars where everyone had too many guns, and they were looking for payback on their neighbors.
Click to expand...


Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything.  Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it.  This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right.  Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything. Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it. This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right. Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.



I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns. 

Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.  

When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything. Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it. This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right. Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.
> 
> Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.
> 
> When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?
Click to expand...


The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> so...thanks for the endorsement of the police state.......I don't remember...are you one of the morons bitching about stop and frisk......or how the police treat minorities? I mean...if letting our police have the powers of Japanese police makes us safer....why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends if they have "probable cause" or not.  I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black".
> 
> But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year.  Tokyo is as big as New York.  They must be doing something right.
Click to expand...



Again...they can search you and your home at will...whenever they want....and they can hold you for just about as long as they want and brutalize you to get you to confess...and if a judge finds out...he doesn't care..........moron....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.
> 
> Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions
> 
> The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.
> 
> The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.
> 
> The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
> 
> San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.




And if it is good for guns...it is even better for all of our electronic devices...right?

The crimes that take place against children on the computer, even by other children are a growing threat......trying to find the numbers for death by cyber bullying and sexual stalking are not easily found...but...if less than 100 children a year can force gun grabbers to pass laws forcing gun owners to keep unattended guns locked up....then why not your computer..Right? it is about saving the lives of children...even if there are under 100 a year then all computers, laptops and tablets need to have a lockable cover over them when the owner is not using them....
and no...passwords are not enough...we need them locked securely...right....? so only a hard cover that denies any access to them will do......

so..if you do not lock up your computer, laptop or tablet...6 months jail time for each device left unsecured, and a 1000 dollar fine for each......just makes sense right...? It isn't interfering with your ability to use that device....? Right?

and then we don't ever have to worry about any cyber stalking or cyber bullying again.....no more need for that guy who surprises sexual predators...no more Slender Man murders....right?


Let's do some good and lock up those computers....after all....they are just objects that you use because you have small penises...right?


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything. Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it. This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right. Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.
> 
> Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.
> 
> When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...



And people who carry guns are more law abiding than the average citizen and more law abiding than police officers.........so joe is not only wrong he is an idiot.......


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.
> 
> Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.
> 
> When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?



you ought to move to one of those "Freer" countries.  Think of the laundry bills you will save from not constantly crapping in your panties over the fear of someone walking down the street next to you might be packing a Glock 17 or a Smith and Wesson 44


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Depends if they have "probable cause" or not.  I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black".
> 
> But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year.  Tokyo is as big as New York.  They must be doing something right.



and for centuries, Japanese elite could kill commoners for owning a sword.  Japan and "civil rights" are a joke


----------



## westwall

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends if they have "probable cause" or not.  I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black".
> 
> But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year.  Tokyo is as big as New York.  They must be doing something right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and for centuries, Japanese elite could kill commoners for owning a sword.  Japan and "civil rights" are a joke
Click to expand...







The Yakuza are still known to murder people in front of the Japanese police.


----------



## turtledude

westwall said:


> [apan and "civil rights" are a joke[
> 
> 
> 
> The Yakuza are still known to murder people in front of the Japanese police.





I wouldn't doubt it.  we had a guy getting a masters in law when I was  a 2L who was this fat little Japanese guy who played a flute.  Turns out he was one serious badass-some high ranking police guy from Tokyo.  he also used to work out with the Judo team and they all said he was one tough SOB.  And he was an armed police officer over there and he used to discuss guns with me.  I don't think he'd let someone get whacked in front of him without putting a serious hurting on the hitter.,  But we never talked much about the actual police work in Japan-he was rather guarded probably because he was a high ranking official


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.
> 
> Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.
> 
> When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?




1) I deny you think so the rest of your post is crap.  how many times have you encountered "heavily armed madmen"  If they were really mad, why are you still above room temperature?  You are just a scummy lying little weasel

2) its funny how you whine about cops yet you want only cops to be legally armed

do you have multiple personalities?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.



so what?


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> and for centuries, Japanese elite could kill commoners for owning a sword. Japan and "civil rights" are a joke



For centuries, American elites could whip their slaves to death.  Not to mention Jim Crow. 

but it's not like today, where we treat black folks with all sorts of dignity, right?  







why is it you guys want to emphasize the sins in the other guy's history and ignore our own?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And if it is good for guns...it is even better for all of our electronic devices...right?
> 
> The crimes that take place against children on the computer, even by other children are a growing threat......trying to find the numbers for death by cyber bullying and sexual stalking are not easily found...but...



You can't kill someone with a computer.  Next.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> you ought to move to one of those "Freer" countries. Think of the laundry bills you will save from not constantly crapping in your panties over the fear of someone walking down the street next to you might be packing a Glock 17 or a Smith and Wesson 44



No, we need to fix THIS country.  Guns are one of the things we need to fix.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> 1) I deny you think so the rest of your post is crap. how many times have you encountered "heavily armed madmen" If they were really mad, why are you still above room temperature? You are just a scummy lying little weasel



Again, best argument for gun control is to let a gun nut fantasize about all the people he wants to kill. 



turtledude said:


> 2) its funny how you whine about cops yet you want only cops to be legally armed
> 
> do you have multiple personalities?



Not at all.  I see them as part of the same problem.  The only reason why cops are armed like soldiers and sometimes act like fools is because there are shitloads of guns out there. 

Most cops are good at their jobs and do it very sincerely.  And frankly, they shouldn't have to worry the guy they pulled over for a speeding ticket might pull a piece on them.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> and for centuries, Japanese elite could kill commoners for owning a sword. Japan and "civil rights" are a joke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For centuries, American elites could whip their slaves to death.  Not to mention Jim Crow.
> 
> but it's not like today, where we treat black folks with all sorts of dignity, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you guys want to emphasize the sins in the other guy's history and ignore our own?
Click to expand...



No...American democrats would whip their slaves....get it right moron........


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> No...American democrats would whip their slaves....get it right moron........



Oh. Right. What conservative Christians called themselves in 1840 had anything to do with today. 

So you will agree that what people thought in 1800 has nothing to do with what we should be doing today, then?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...American democrats would whip their slaves....get it right moron........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Right. What conservative Christians called themselves in 1840 had anything to do with today.
> 
> So you will agree that what people thought in 1800 has nothing to do with what we should be doing today, then?
Click to expand...



Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that it was democrats who owned the slaves?  and fought to keep them?  and created the kkk to terrorize the newly freed slaves and the Republicans who were helping them....and then created jim crow to deny them rights?  moron.....


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what?
Click to expand...


So what?  What do you mean "so what?"  That is relevant to your paranoid schizophrenia.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if it is good for guns...it is even better for all of our electronic devices...right?
> 
> The crimes that take place against children on the computer, even by other children are a growing threat......trying to find the numbers for death by cyber bullying and sexual stalking are not easily found...but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't kill someone with a computer.  Next.
Click to expand...



You don't care about children committing suicide because of cyber bullying, or children attacked by sexual predators.....figures.....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that it was democrats who owned the slaves? and fought to keep them? and created the kkk to terrorize the newly freed slaves and the Republicans who were helping them....and then created jim crow to deny them rights? moron.....



Because those aren't the parties that exist today.  What the people called themselves back then are kind of irrelevent.  

Both parties really let the Blacks down.  The Civil War was a great example of winning the war and losing the peace.  

Which has what to do with Madmen who think they are comic book super villains getting automatic weapons?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that it was democrats who owned the slaves? and fought to keep them? and created the kkk to terrorize the newly freed slaves and the Republicans who were helping them....and then created jim crow to deny them rights? moron.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because those aren't the parties that exist today.  What the people called themselves back then are kind of irrelevent.
> 
> Both parties really let the Blacks down.  The Civil War was a great example of winning the war and losing the peace.
> 
> Which has what to do with Madmen who think they are comic book super villains getting automatic weapons?
Click to expand...



No...the democrats existed back then.....and still do...and they are still racists...you brought up the issue...not me....

And which madmen got automatic weapons...considering all rifles as a category kill less people than the categories of knives, and hands and feet.......we should ban knives and hands and feet first.....


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What do you mean "so what?"  That is relevant to your paranoid schizophrenia.
Click to expand...


Uh, no.  so what?  So what if the majority of gun owners aren't out there causing some of the 32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes.  the point is, these things ARE happening because you have a gun industry that thinks, "Well, I know he's got orange hair and he's acting weird, but he's not coming up on a database!  Have an AR-15 AND a 100 round drum!"  

You see, the fastest way you gun nuts could get folks like me out of your hair is to actually fight to keep guns out of the hands of people like Holmes.  

But instead you mewl about "Freedom" and "Founding Fathers" and "Rights" because you might have to wait a week or can only buy a limited number of guns or fill out a few forms.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> No...the democrats existed back then.....and still do...and they are still racists...you brought up the issue...not me....



Exccept back then, the Democrats were conservatives.  And they even had nutty ideas about using guns to overthrow the government.   Sorry, man, you own these people, not me.  



2aguy said:


> And which madmen got automatic weapons...considering all rifles as a category kill less people than the categories of knives, and hands and feet.......we should ban knives and hands and feet first.....



If holmes had killed 12 people and injured 70 with his hands and feet, he really would have been a Comic Book Super Villain. 

But he needed a gun to do that kind of damage. Guns he was able to buy despite being batshit crazy.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What do you mean "so what?"  That is relevant to your paranoid schizophrenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  so what?  So what if the majority of gun owners aren't out there causing some of the 32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes.  the point is, these things ARE happening because you have a gun industry that thinks, "Well, I know he's got orange hair and he's acting weird, but he's not coming up on a database!  Have an AR-15 AND a 100 round drum!"
> 
> You see, the fastest way you gun nuts could get folks like me out of your hair is to actually fight to keep guns out of the hands of people like Holmes.
> 
> But instead you mewl about "Freedom" and "Founding Fathers" and "Rights" because you might have to wait a week or can only buy a limited number of guns or fill out a few forms.
Click to expand...



Moron...we actually want criminals to be locked up....you assholes want normal people locked up...it is part of your truth and reality dyslexia.....and gun murder 2013...8,454....and accidental gun deaths 2013...505

Violent crimes stopped and lives saved each year.....on average 2 million......

try to get it right moron....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...the democrats existed back then.....and still do...and they are still racists...you brought up the issue...not me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exccept back then, the Democrats were conservatives.  And they even had nutty ideas about using guns to overthrow the government.   Sorry, man, you own these people, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And which madmen got automatic weapons...considering all rifles as a category kill less people than the categories of knives, and hands and feet.......we should ban knives and hands and feet first.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If holmes had killed 12 people and injured 70 with his hands and feet, he really would have been a Comic Book Super Villain.
> 
> But he needed a gun to do that kind of damage. Guns he was able to buy despite being batshit crazy.
Click to expand...



democrats today are no different than back then.....they want to have control over other people....just like you moron....


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What do you mean "so what?"  That is relevant to your paranoid schizophrenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  so what?  So what if the majority of gun owners aren't out there causing some of the 32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes.  the point is, these things ARE happening because you have a gun industry that thinks, "Well, I know he's got orange hair and he's acting weird, but he's not coming up on a database!  Have an AR-15 AND a 100 round drum!"
> 
> You see, the fastest way you gun nuts could get folks like me out of your hair is to actually fight to keep guns out of the hands of people like Holmes.
> 
> But instead you mewl about "Freedom" and "Founding Fathers" and "Rights" because you might have to wait a week or can only buy a limited number of guns or fill out a few forms.
Click to expand...


Most criminals obtain their weapons through illegal means.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron...we actually want criminals to be locked up....you assholes want normal people locked up...it is part of your truth and reality dyslexia.....and gun murder 2013...8,454....and accidental gun deaths 2013...505



Uh, guy, we lock up 2 million people, and we have another 7 million on parole or probation. Meanwhile, Japan  - where you claim is some kind of gun grabbing police state- only has 69,000 people in prison.   Yet they have a lower crime rate than we do.  Now why do you think that is? 

Oh, number of gun murders in Japan?  11 in the last year we have data for.  



2aguy said:


> Violent crimes stopped and lives saved each year.....on average 2 million......



Bullshit. According to the FBI, there are only 201 justifiable homicides by civilians with guns.  

So you are to have us believe that only one out of 10,000 incidents where a gun is pulled in anger, does a body hit the floor. 

Given you gun nuts come on here and fantasize every day about all the people y ou can't wait to shoot, I find that hard to buy.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Most criminals obtain their weapons through illegal means.



Which they couldn't do if guns weren't so readily available.  

frontline hot guns How Criminals Get Guns PBS

An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.


In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. 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. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" 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.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> and for centuries, Japanese elite could kill commoners for owning a sword. Japan and "civil rights" are a joke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For centuries, American elites could whip their slaves to death.  Not to mention Jim Crow.
> 
> but it's not like today, where we treat black folks with all sorts of dignity, right?
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you guys want to emphasize the sins in the other guy's history and ignore our own?
Click to expand...


Your hero worship of Japan for its gun control ignores too many facts about Japan.

That you are willing to throw away your civil rights in order to remove legally owned firearms is ridiculous.  Perhaps you don't value your civil rights, but many of us do.  The shortcomings of the culture in Japan, including the way women are treated and more, seems to be fine with you, as long as guns are removed.

The Japanese can be very prejudiced towards other cultures and races.  Try being Korean and in Japan.

And the total removal of guns in a culture as open as ours is simply means only the law abiding are unarmed.  And the repercussions concerning the overpopulation of wildlife and the lack of funding for conservation efforts would be devastating.

It always feels safer under a strictly controlled totalitarian gov't.   

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” 
― Samuel Adams


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...we actually want criminals to be locked up....you assholes want normal people locked up...it is part of your truth and reality dyslexia.....and gun murder 2013...8,454....and accidental gun deaths 2013...505
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, we lock up 2 million people, and we have another 7 million on parole or probation. Meanwhile, Japan  - where you claim is some kind of gun grabbing police state- only has 69,000 people in prison.   Yet they have a lower crime rate than we do.  Now why do you think that is?
> 
> Oh, number of gun murders in Japan?  11 in the last year we have data for.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Violent crimes stopped and lives saved each year.....on average 2 million......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. According to the FBI, there are only 201 justifiable homicides by civilians with guns.
> 
> So you are to have us believe that only one out of 10,000 incidents where a gun is pulled in anger, does a body hit the floor.
> 
> Given you gun nuts come on here and fantasize every day about all the people y ou can't wait to shoot, I find that hard to buy.
Click to expand...


Your claims that every defensive gun use must result in a death in order to be counted shows your own bloodthirsty attitude.  As for gun buffs fantasizing about shooting people, that is more your fantasy than any serious gun buff I see here.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most criminals obtain their weapons through illegal means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they couldn't do if guns weren't so readily available.
> 
> frontline hot guns How Criminals Get Guns PBS
> 
> An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.
> 
> 
> In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. 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. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" 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.
Click to expand...



Okay moron.....if someone with a clean background wants to buy a gun for a criminal...how do you stop that....since they will pass the background check?  And stealing guns is the other way they get guns........so again...background checks do nothing to stop that either......


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...we actually want criminals to be locked up....you assholes want normal people locked up...it is part of your truth and reality dyslexia.....and gun murder 2013...8,454....and accidental gun deaths 2013...505
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, we lock up 2 million people, and we have another 7 million on parole or probation. Meanwhile, Japan  - where you claim is some kind of gun grabbing police state- only has 69,000 people in prison.   Yet they have a lower crime rate than we do.  Now why do you think that is?
> 
> Oh, number of gun murders in Japan?  11 in the last year we have data for.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Violent crimes stopped and lives saved each year.....on average 2 million......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. According to the FBI, there are only 201 justifiable homicides by civilians with guns.
> 
> So you are to have us believe that only one out of 10,000 incidents where a gun is pulled in anger, does a body hit the floor.
> 
> Given you gun nuts come on here and fantasize every day about all the people y ou can't wait to shoot, I find that hard to buy.
Click to expand...



I told you why that is joe.....they live in a police state...they have  a 95% or higher conviction rate on criminals...if you are arrested in Japan you are gong to jail.....they can search you for whatever reason they want....they can hold you just about as long as they want to......

And you know what joe.....they still have gun crime.......their criminals still get guns when they want or need them......


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...we actually want criminals to be locked up....you assholes want normal people locked up...it is part of your truth and reality dyslexia.....and gun murder 2013...8,454....and accidental gun deaths 2013...505
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, we lock up 2 million people, and we have another 7 million on parole or probation. Meanwhile, Japan  - where you claim is some kind of gun grabbing police state- only has 69,000 people in prison.   Yet they have a lower crime rate than we do.  Now why do you think that is?
> 
> Oh, number of gun murders in Japan?  11 in the last year we have data for.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Violent crimes stopped and lives saved each year.....on average 2 million......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. According to the FBI, there are only 201 justifiable homicides by civilians with guns.
> 
> So you are to have us believe that only one out of 10,000 incidents where a gun is pulled in anger, does a body hit the floor.
> 
> Given you gun nuts come on here and fantasize every day about all the people y ou can't wait to shoot, I find that hard to buy.
Click to expand...



Yeah.....moron.......criminals do not want to get shot...victims do not want to shoot people....that narrows the number of times a moron criminal will push an attack to the point where a victim will feel compelled to pull the trigger......only you sit there and fantasize about taking the lives of minorities....by the way...did you get help for those feelings yet....?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> That you are willing to throw away your civil rights in order to remove legally owned firearms is ridiculous. Perhaps you don't value your civil rights, but many of us do. The shortcomings of the culture in Japan, including the way women are treated and more, seems to be fine with you, as long as guns are removed.



Not a civil rights issue, guy. You shouldn't have a gun because some slave rapist couldnt' write a militia amendment clearly. 



2aguy said:


> Okay moron.....if someone with a clean background wants to buy a gun for a criminal...how do you stop that....since they will pass the background check? And stealing guns is the other way they get guns........so again...background checks do nothing to stop that either......



Very simply put.  The guy who bought the gun for the criminal goes to jail. The Gun Dealer goes to jail.   Problem. Fucking.Solved.  

Betcha when the first few gun dealers go to prison and enjoy the pleasures of anal rape, they are going to make A REALLY GOOD EFFORT to make sure they know who they are selling to.  

Some of them might even find lines of work that don't involve inflicting misery on communities.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And you know what joe.....they still have gun crime.......their criminals still get guns when they want or need them......



The Japanese had 11 gun murders compared to our 11,000.   Me, I'll take a 99.99% reduction in the gun murder rate.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you are willing to throw away your civil rights in order to remove legally owned firearms is ridiculous. Perhaps you don't value your civil rights, but many of us do. The shortcomings of the culture in Japan, including the way women are treated and more, seems to be fine with you, as long as guns are removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a civil rights issue, guy. You shouldn't have a gun because some slave rapist couldnt' write a militia amendment clearly.
Click to expand...


Yes, it IS a civil rights issue.  And I was not just referring to the 2nd amendment.   Numerous other constitutionally guaranteed rights, like forbidding unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech, ect, are not present in Japanese gov't.

And the founding fathers wrote the 2nd as they did for a reason.  It was never intended to mean only a state militia.  The Federalist papers make that abundantly clear.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know what joe.....they still have gun crime.......their criminals still get guns when they want or need them......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese had 11 gun murders compared to our 11,000.   Me, I'll take a 99.99% reduction in the gun murder rate.
Click to expand...


If you think our culture and the japanese culture will react the same you have lost your marbles.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> Again, best argument for gun control is to let a gun nut fantasize about all the people he wants to kill.
> 
> [
> 
> Not at all.  I see them as part of the same problem.  The only reason why cops are armed like soldiers and sometimes act like fools is because there are shitloads of guns out there.
> 
> Most cops are good at their jobs and do it very sincerely.  And frankly, they shouldn't have to worry the guy they pulled over for a speeding ticket might pull a piece on them.



I guess you are too stupid to figure out that if gun owners were as dangerous and as unhinged as your garment soiling rants say they are, you'd be scared to death to constantly insult them.  That you do, without suffering any harm is proof you are a fucking liar


----------



## WinterBorn

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Again, best argument for gun control is to let a gun nut fantasize about all the people he wants to kill.
> 
> [
> 
> Not at all.  I see them as part of the same problem.  The only reason why cops are armed like soldiers and sometimes act like fools is because there are shitloads of guns out there.
> 
> Most cops are good at their jobs and do it very sincerely.  And frankly, they shouldn't have to worry the guy they pulled over for a speeding ticket might pull a piece on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are too stupid to figure out that if gun owners were as dangerous and as unhinged as your garment soiling rants say they are, you'd be scared to death to constantly insult them.  That you do, without suffering any harm is proof you are a fucking liar
Click to expand...


There are around 100 million gun owners in the US.  If we were as dangerous as this nimrod claims we are, he wouldn't be here.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, it IS a civil rights issue. And I was not just referring to the 2nd amendment. Numerous other constitutionally guaranteed rights, like forbidding unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech, ect, are not present in Japanese gov't.
> 
> And the founding fathers wrote the 2nd as they did for a reason. It was never intended to mean only a state militia. The Federalist papers make that abundantly clear.



again, could care less what the Founding Slave Rapists were thinking.  My thought is, does it make sense in the HERE AND NOW.  In the HERE AND NOW, there is no good reason for an average citizen to have a military grade weapon.  There is LESS good reason for a psychotic person who thinks he's the Joker to have one.  

I'd take Japan's crime rates over ours any day of the week.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> I guess you are too stupid to figure out that if gun owners were as dangerous and as unhinged as your garment soiling rants say they are, you'd be scared to death to constantly insult them. That you do, without suffering any harm is proof you are a fucking liar



Again, guy, the best argument for gun control is to let you guys rant about all the people you want to shot.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> There are around 100 million gun owners in the US. If we were as dangerous as this nimrod claims we are, he wouldn't be here.



32,000 gun deaths a year.  You guys are doing plenty of damage.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it IS a civil rights issue. And I was not just referring to the 2nd amendment. Numerous other constitutionally guaranteed rights, like forbidding unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech, ect, are not present in Japanese gov't.
> 
> And the founding fathers wrote the 2nd as they did for a reason. It was never intended to mean only a state militia. The Federalist papers make that abundantly clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, could care less what the Founding Slave Rapists were thinking.  My thought is, does it make sense in the HERE AND NOW.  In the HERE AND NOW, there is no good reason for an average citizen to have a military grade weapon.  There is LESS good reason for a psychotic person who thinks he's the Joker to have one.
> 
> I'd take Japan's crime rates over ours any day of the week.
Click to expand...


Once again, I'll take our civil rights (not just the 2nd amendment) over those in Japan.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you are willing to throw away your civil rights in order to remove legally owned firearms is ridiculous. Perhaps you don't value your civil rights, but many of us do. The shortcomings of the culture in Japan, including the way women are treated and more, seems to be fine with you, as long as guns are removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a civil rights issue, guy. You shouldn't have a gun because some slave rapist couldnt' write a militia amendment clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay moron.....if someone with a clean background wants to buy a gun for a criminal...how do you stop that....since they will pass the background check? And stealing guns is the other way they get guns........so again...background checks do nothing to stop that either......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very simply put.  The guy who bought the gun for the criminal goes to jail. The Gun Dealer goes to jail.   Problem. Fucking.Solved.
> 
> Betcha when the first few gun dealers go to prison and enjoy the pleasures of anal rape, they are going to make A REALLY GOOD EFFORT to make sure they know who they are selling to.
> 
> Some of them might even find lines of work that don't involve inflicting misery on communities.
Click to expand...



Moron.....that is the law now.........if you are caught providing guns for felons you are arrested....the gun dealer is in the clear moron because the original buyer passed the background check....moron......and of course when they know the buyer is an actual straw purchaser they inform the police....unless of course it is the obama justice dept. that orders them to complete the sale......


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are too stupid to figure out that if gun owners were as dangerous and as unhinged as your garment soiling rants say they are, you'd be scared to death to constantly insult them. That you do, without suffering any harm is proof you are a fucking liar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, the best argument for gun control is to let you guys rant about all the people you want to shot.
Click to expand...


I have seen you cheer murders more than any gun buff.  Every gun buff's comments about shooting someone was prefaced by that person directly threatening them or someone else.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are around 100 million gun owners in the US. If we were as dangerous as this nimrod claims we are, he wouldn't be here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths a year.  You guys are doing plenty of damage.
Click to expand...

 
Under 9,000 gun murders by 100 million armed citizens and you have your panties in a wad.  lol

As for the suicides, you still have no proof banning guns would change a damn thing.  Your precious Japan has twice the suicides per capital, without any guns.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are around 100 million gun owners in the US. If we were as dangerous as this nimrod claims we are, he wouldn't be here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths a year.  You guys are doing plenty of damage.
Click to expand...



And again....only 8,454 gun murders mainly by gang members in inner cities......and only 505 accidental gun deaths......the rest are suicide and of course since Japan has absolute gun control and no access to guns...they have 2 times our suicide rate by hanging, jumping in front of trains and poison.......

And again you fail to mention that all of the research points out that the lowest number of times studies show that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent crimnal attack and save lives is 764,000....and the average of all the studies that exclude military and police defensive shootings puts the number at 2 million times a year on average........

the numbers speak for themselves.....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron.....that is the law now.........if you are caught providing guns for felons you are arrested....the gun dealer is in the clear moron because the original buyer passed the background check....moron......and of course when they know the buyer is an actual straw purchaser they inform the police....unless of course it is the obama justice dept. that orders them to complete the sale......



You see, here's the thing. The Gun Dealers know EXACTLY what is going on.  The Straw purchaser usually walks into the gun store with his thug buddy, who picks out the gun he wants. 

In Chicago, for instance, 20% of all the guns recovered by police from gang members all came from ONE STORE. 

So simple enough.  You sold a gun used in a crime, you get prosecuted.  If we have a gun dealer and a straw buyer, we prosecute both, and if the Straw Buyer rats out the gun dealer, I'm good with that.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And again....only 8,454 gun murders mainly by gang members in inner cities....



Except that's not true.  TOTAL Gang-related murders by ANY method are less than 2000 a year.  Most of the 11,000 gun murders we have every year (not just the one year you cherry pick) are domestic violence.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....that is the law now.........if you are caught providing guns for felons you are arrested....the gun dealer is in the clear moron because the original buyer passed the background check....moron......and of course when they know the buyer is an actual straw purchaser they inform the police....unless of course it is the obama justice dept. that orders them to complete the sale......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, here's the thing. The Gun Dealers know EXACTLY what is going on.  The Straw purchaser usually walks into the gun store with his thug buddy, who picks out the gun he wants.
> 
> In Chicago, for instance, 20% of all the guns recovered by police from gang members all came from ONE STORE.
> 
> So simple enough.  You sold a gun used in a crime, you get prosecuted.  If we have a gun dealer and a straw buyer, we prosecute both, and if the Straw Buyer rats out the gun dealer, I'm good with that.
Click to expand...


Duh!  If a seller is proven to have sold a gun knowingly illegally, then of course he would be prosecuted.  These are already laws on the books, Joe.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....that is the law now.........if you are caught providing guns for felons you are arrested....the gun dealer is in the clear moron because the original buyer passed the background check....moron......and of course when they know the buyer is an actual straw purchaser they inform the police....unless of course it is the obama justice dept. that orders them to complete the sale......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, here's the thing. The Gun Dealers know EXACTLY what is going on.  The Straw purchaser usually walks into the gun store with his thug buddy, who picks out the gun he wants.
> 
> In Chicago, for instance, 20% of all the guns recovered by police from gang members all came from ONE STORE.
> 
> So simple enough.  You sold a gun used in a crime, you get prosecuted.  If we have a gun dealer and a straw buyer, we prosecute both, and if the Straw Buyer rats out the gun dealer, I'm good with that.
Click to expand...



Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....

80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And again you fail to mention that all of the research points out that the lowest number of times studies show that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent crimnal attack and save lives is 764,000.



Actually, the lowest number is 47,170 from the FBI's NCVS.  

According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11 As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense

https://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Duh! If a seller is proven to have sold a gun knowingly illegally, then of course he would be prosecuted. These are already laws on the books, Joe.



I could care less what he knew or didn't know.  Throw a few of them in jail, and they'll get a lot more selective about who they sell to.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....



So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you fail to mention that all of the research points out that the lowest number of times studies show that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent crimnal attack and save lives is 764,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the lowest number is 47,170 from the FBI's NCVS.
> 
> According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11 As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense
> 
> https://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
Click to expand...



The violence policy center lies.....they make things up because they want guns banned...they have been caught lying numerous times.....and moron.....as I keep explaining to Brain, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey.....not even close.....they don't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense....

So try again moron......in fact...the NCVS can't even accurately measure the crimes they are tasked with studying like rape and sexual assault......


----------



## jillian

turtledude said:


> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus



rachel maddow has never "melted down", wacko.


----------



## jillian

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
Click to expand...


are you surprised that that's how he thinks?


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you fail to mention that all of the research points out that the lowest number of times studies show that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent crimnal attack and save lives is 764,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the lowest number is 47,170 from the FBI's NCVS.
> 
> According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11 As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense
> 
> https://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The violence policy center lies.....they make things up because they want guns banned...they have been caught lying numerous times.....and moron.....as I keep explaining to Brain, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey.....not even close.....they don't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense....
> 
> So try again moron......in fact...the NCVS can't even accurately measure the crimes they are tasked with studying like rape and sexual assault......
Click to expand...


your assessment that they "lie" is based on nothing but your own bigotry.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh! If a seller is proven to have sold a gun knowingly illegally, then of course he would be prosecuted. These are already laws on the books, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less what he knew or didn't know.  Throw a few of them in jail, and they'll get a lot more selective about who they sell to.
Click to expand...


And we could care less what you want when it involves putting someone who didn't break the law in prison.

Won't happen.


----------



## jillian

Stephanie said:


> Yeah but but but. don't dare accuse her and that Nasty station she is on, Msnbc: as being Fringe and Extremist.
> 
> who want's to watch a liberal talking head screeching and melting down all the time. icky
> 
> that's why they (liberals) can't make it big on the radio, like say a Rush Limbaugh. they drive people to want to poke their ear drums out and ...



as usual, you're confused steffie. it isn't MSNBC that's "nasty". you just take offense that they point out your stupidity.

faux news is the one that's nasty. i hope that unconfused you a bit.

but i know it won't.

poor steffie.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> The violence policy center lies.....they make things up because they want guns banned...they have been caught lying numerous times.....and moron.....as I keep explaining to Brain, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey.....not even close.....they don't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense....
> 
> So try again moron......in fact...the NCVS can't even accurately measure the crimes they are tasked with studying like rape and sexual assault......



It's kind of hard to measure a crime where we shame the victim.  

Point is, the NCVS survey is a running-five year study of crime involving hundreds of thousands of people.  

The Kleck study was a one-time survey of 5000 people.  

Which one do you think is more likely to get it right?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> And we could care less what you want when it involves putting someone who didn't break the law in prison.
> 
> Won't happen.



Actually, the IRS entirely works on that theory... so, no. Not so much.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
Click to expand...


Once again you are lying.  No one has mentioned race (since the most recent gang related shooting was white bikers).


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh! If a seller is proven to have sold a gun knowingly illegally, then of course he would be prosecuted. These are already laws on the books, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less what he knew or didn't know.  Throw a few of them in jail, and they'll get a lot more selective about who they sell to.
Click to expand...


Yeah, no need to worry about him not breaking the law if sending him to prison fits your agenda, huh?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we could care less what you want when it involves putting someone who didn't break the law in prison.
> 
> Won't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the IRS entirely works on that theory... so, no. Not so much.
Click to expand...


The IRS does not send someone to prison when they have broken no law.  Tax Evasion is against the law.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you surprised that that's how he thinks?
Click to expand...



Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you fail to mention that all of the research points out that the lowest number of times studies show that Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent crimnal attack and save lives is 764,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the lowest number is 47,170 from the FBI's NCVS.
> 
> According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11 As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense
> 
> https://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The violence policy center lies.....they make things up because they want guns banned...they have been caught lying numerous times.....and moron.....as I keep explaining to Brain, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey.....not even close.....they don't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense....
> 
> So try again moron......in fact...the NCVS can't even accurately measure the crimes they are tasked with studying like rape and sexual assault......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your assessment that they "lie" is based on nothing but your own bigotry.
Click to expand...



The assessment comes from the lies they put out there as research....

Debunking a Pro-Gun Control Study Using Its Own Stats PJ MediaJohn lott...

Calling this “the most up-to-date, comprehensive source for state gun ownership rates,” VPC attempted to match this 2002 survey data with 2007 firearms mortality data from the CDC, which immediately invalidates their dataset.


When asked to define this “apples and oranges” comparison of two unrelated datasets, Carl Moody, economics professor at William and Mary, called it a “screw-up.”


To give VPC a fair opportunity to make their point with properly-collated data, this report cites 2002 CDC mortality and FBI violent crime data. But first, VPC committed another sophomoric error which must be addressed.


The American Association for Public Opinion Research defines the “margin of sampling error” (MOSE) as:


Basically, the margin of sampling error is the price you pay for not talking to everyone in your population group. The MOSE describes the range that the answer likely falls between if we had talked to everyone instead of just a sample.


In other words, deleting most of a dataset in their press release enabled VPC to “cherry-pick” data that “proved” their predetermined conclusion that firearms represent a negative value to society.


By using less than 20% of the entire dataset, shown in Table 1, VPC makes its point that “weak” gun laws (less gun control) correlate with higher rates of total firearms death — more than four times as much — and higher rates of homicides using firearms (more than triple). Also, “weak” gun law states have over 4.5 times higher firearms suicide rates. Violent crime rates support VPC’s allegation: “weak” gun laws lead to more crime. (All rates are defined as incidents per 100,000 population.)

*************************************************
**************************************************

Massive errors in the Violence Policy Center s Concealed Carry Killers - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

In the Michigan state reports on concealed handgun permit holders that are cited by the VPC, 185 people died of suicides during the four reports from 2007 through 2012. That is 29 percent of the purported 636 deaths for the entire United States that the Violence Policy Center attributes to permitted concealed handguns. 

But there is the problem: If you look at page 2 in the latest report, you will see that the 28 suicides do not list a cause of death. The report merely notes that permit holders committed suicide. We don’t know if they committed suicide with a gun and if it was a gun, that it was the gun that they carried concealed. Given that the overwhelming majority of these suicides were presumably at home, like most suicides, it isn’t even clear why a concealed handgun permit is relevant.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violence policy center lies.....they make things up because they want guns banned...they have been caught lying numerous times.....and moron.....as I keep explaining to Brain, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey.....not even close.....they don't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense....
> 
> So try again moron......in fact...the NCVS can't even accurately measure the crimes they are tasked with studying like rape and sexual assault......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of hard to measure a crime where we shame the victim.
> 
> Point is, the NCVS survey is a running-five year study of crime involving hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> The Kleck study was a one-time survey of 5000 people.
> 
> Which one do you think is more likely to get it right?
Click to expand...



Kleck's , the most accurately done of the studies is only one of 19 moron.......and they all show rates of self defense at least 764,000 and go as high as 3 million....and they are done by different researchers, both public and private, over a 40 year period...and many of them were done by anti gun reserachers...includeing Kleck himself....a lefty in his own right as well as the clinton Dept. Of Justice ( which found 1.5 million times a year ) and obama spent 10 million dollars in 2013 through the CDC to study all the research on guns......

40 years of research moron.....at least 19 separate studies.......you are wrong...the NCVS is not a gun study...and doesn't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense...kind of a stupid way to find out about gun self defense if you don't actually ask people about it isn't it?


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you surprised that that's how he thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....
Click to expand...


someone with a double digit IQ like you shouldn't be calling anyone else moron.

i knew there was a reason i mostly ignore your posts. you have nothing to say. your being stupid and ignorant on top of that makes you pretty useless.


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violence policy center lies.....they make things up because they want guns banned...they have been caught lying numerous times.....and moron.....as I keep explaining to Brain, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey.....not even close.....they don't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense....
> 
> So try again moron......in fact...the NCVS can't even accurately measure the crimes they are tasked with studying like rape and sexual assault......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of hard to measure a crime where we shame the victim.
> 
> Point is, the NCVS survey is a running-five year study of crime involving hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> The Kleck study was a one-time survey of 5000 people.
> 
> Which one do you think is more likely to get it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck's , the most accurately done of the studies is only one of 19 moron.......and they all show rates of self defense at least 764,000 and go as high as 3 million....and they are done by different researchers, both public and private, over a 40 year period...and many of them were done by anti gun reserachers...includeing Kleck himself....a lefty in his own right as well as the clinton Dept. Of Justice ( which found 1.5 million times a year ) and obama spent 10 million dollars in 2013 through the CDC to study all the research on guns......
> 
> 40 years of research moron.....at least 19 separate studies.......you are wrong...the NCVS is not a gun study...and doesn't even ask the people if they used a gun for self defense...kind of a stupid way to find out about gun self defense if you don't actually ask people about it isn't it?
Click to expand...


again you're calling people smarter than you "moron".


----------



## WinterBorn

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you surprised that that's how he thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....
Click to expand...


He might do something stupid, but I seriously doubt it.  I doubt he has the balls to actually DO anything.  He is a whiner who wants the gov't to fix everything.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you surprised that that's how he thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> someone with a double digit IQ like you shouldn't be calling anyone else moron.
> 
> i knew there was a reason i mostly ignore your posts. you have nothing to say. your being stupid and ignorant on top of that makes you pretty useless.
Click to expand...



Wow....what a dumb post in response......the "Nah nah nah nah nah.....you a dumb poopy pants...."  is not the best response....you should try to overcome the democrat controlled education you obviously are a victim of.....and try to post something with some substance.....


----------



## jillian

WinterBorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you surprised that that's how he thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might do something stupid, but I seriously doubt it.  I doubt he has the balls to actually DO anything.  He is a whiner who wants the gov't to fix everything.
Click to expand...


as opposed to you or the wacko you were responding to?


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....if the guy buying the gun passes the background check...he is legal.....and it is not up to the gun store to play cop......and be Angela Lansbury and go out and catch the criminal transaction moron....
> 
> 80% of gun murders in Chicago and other big cities are gang or drug related....moron....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you surprised that that's how he thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> someone with a double digit IQ like you shouldn't be calling anyone else moron.
> 
> i knew there was a reason i mostly ignore your posts. you have nothing to say. your being stupid and ignorant on top of that makes you pretty useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....what a dumb post in response......the "Nah nah nah nah nah.....you a dumb poopy pants...."  is not the best response....you should try to overcome the democrat controlled education you obviously are a victim of.....and try to post something with some substance.....
Click to expand...


no snookums. you're really stupid and your posts are painfully ignorant.

your pathetic blather doesn't deserve more of a response than that.


----------



## WinterBorn

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes them okay, then ?  "Hey, those murders aren't a big deal, it's only the Darkies getting shot, Cleetus!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you surprised that that's how he thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> someone with a double digit IQ like you shouldn't be calling anyone else moron.
> 
> i knew there was a reason i mostly ignore your posts. you have nothing to say. your being stupid and ignorant on top of that makes you pretty useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....what a dumb post in response......the "Nah nah nah nah nah.....you a dumb poopy pants...."  is not the best response....you should try to overcome the democrat controlled education you obviously are a victim of.....and try to post something with some substance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no snookums. you're really stupid and your posts are painfully ignorant.
> 
> your pathetic blather doesn't deserve more of a response than that.
Click to expand...


Jillian, surely you don't go along with JoeyB's idea of sending gun dealers (who followed the rules) to prison?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yeah, no need to worry about him not breaking the law if sending him to prison fits your agenda, huh?



Nope, I don't have a problem with it.  I see a difference between law and justice.  It would be perfectly just sending gun merchants to prison for selling to criminals. 



WinterBorn said:


> The IRS does not send someone to prison when they have broken no law. Tax Evasion is against the law.



You're kidding, right?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Kleck's , the most accurately done of the studies is only one of 19 moron.......



Now, when you say shit like that, I just can't take you terribly seriously.  

The point is, simple logic.  If you accept Kleck's numbers or really anyone elses-  you'd have to accept that 99.99999% of criminals are intimidated by the site of a gun and the gun holder is calm enough to not shoot him dead.  

It's so improbable that it defies belief.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no need to worry about him not breaking the law if sending him to prison fits your agenda, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I don't have a problem with it.  I see a difference between law and justice.  It would be perfectly just sending gun merchants to prison for selling to criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS does not send someone to prison when they have broken no law. Tax Evasion is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...


Your idea of justice is more like revenge.  Sorry, but we are a nation of laws.

No, I am not kidding.   People are not sent to prison intentionally unless they break the law.  The gun dealers broke no laws.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Your idea of justice is more like revenge. Sorry, but we are a nation of laws.
> 
> No, I am not kidding. People are not sent to prison intentionally unless they break the law. The gun dealers broke no laws.



Accessory to murder.  12 counts.  Done.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea of justice is more like revenge. Sorry, but we are a nation of laws.
> 
> No, I am not kidding. People are not sent to prison intentionally unless they break the law. The gun dealers broke no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accessory to murder.  12 counts.  Done.
Click to expand...


Only if you redefine what "accessory to murder" actually means in the legal system.    Not done.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Only if you redefine what "accessory to murder" actually means in the legal system. Not done.



Right. Because those gun dealers are WHITE.  

If htey were brown, they'd be thrown in jail for all sorts of shit.


----------



## turtledude

jillian said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rachel maddow has never "melted down", wacko.
Click to expand...


yes she has.  I suspect you melt at the thought of her


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> Right. Because those gun dealers are WHITE.
> 
> If htey were brown, they'd be thrown in jail for all sorts of shit.



most felonious gun users are black.  Stick that in your sheets and smoke it


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> 
> Moron.....joe is the only one who talks about killing minorities...he really needs to get help before he does something stupid....



sounds like she gets wet thinking about Rachel MadCow


----------



## turtledude

jillian said:


> [
> 
> again you're calling people smarter than you "moron".



I am smarter than you are. I am smarter than JoeB and the rest of the anti gun morons on this board.  and I bet most of the posters on this board are smarter than you.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you redefine what "accessory to murder" actually means in the legal system. Not done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Because those gun dealers are WHITE.
> 
> If htey were brown, they'd be thrown in jail for all sorts of shit.
Click to expand...


Because the definition of "accessory to murder" does not fit what they did.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> most felonious gun users are black. Stick that in your sheets and smoke it



We knew it wouldn't take long to get to the racism.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Because the definition of "accessory to murder" does not fit what they did.



Does to me.  The whole gun industry is based on providing a steady stream of weapons to bad guys.  

They'd go broke if they just sold to hunters and target shooters.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck's , the most accurately done of the studies is only one of 19 moron.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, when you say shit like that, I just can't take you terribly seriously.
> 
> The point is, simple logic.  If you accept Kleck's numbers or really anyone elses-  you'd have to accept that 99.99999% of criminals are intimidated by the site of a gun and the gun holder is calm enough to not shoot him dead.
> 
> It's so improbable that it defies belief.
Click to expand...



Moron.....criminals are not robbing people to get shot....they rob people to get money....and if a victim pulls a weapon and threatens to shoot them.....they simply move on and find someone like you.....an unarmed, dimwit they can rob easily.......


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron.....criminals are not robbing people to get shot....they rob people to get money....and if a victim pulls a weapon and threatens to shoot them.....they simply move on and find someone like you.....an unarmed, dimwit they can rob easily.......



Right, because a drug addled criminal is capable of that sort of rational thinking. 

Again, finding it hard to believe you gun nuts would NOT SHOOT 99.99999% of the time you are confronted with a criminal.  

Not the way most of you cheered Zimmerman like he won the superbowl.  

Zimmerman was living your dream.  To plug some Darkie thug.  

Who just turned out to be a kid buying candy, but man, he was a scary looking kid.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....criminals are not robbing people to get shot....they rob people to get money....and if a victim pulls a weapon and threatens to shoot them.....they simply move on and find someone like you.....an unarmed, dimwit they can rob easily.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because a drug addled criminal is capable of that sort of rational thinking.
> 
> Again, finding it hard to believe you gun nuts would NOT SHOOT 99.99999% of the time you are confronted with a criminal.
> 
> Not the way most of you cheered Zimmerman like he won the superbowl.
> 
> Zimmerman was living your dream.  To plug some Darkie thug.
> 
> Who just turned out to be a kid buying candy, but man, he was a scary looking kid.
Click to expand...



moron....I know you can't help it...but you would think your doctors could adjust your meds.......

Why is it you are the only one dreaming about killing minorities...and then you accuse others of doing it.......that is called "Projection" get some help....

As to Zimmerman.....the kid didn't just buy candy...as a gun grabber and a lefty of course you have to lie and emote....if you didn't have those two things you couldn't communicate with the sane world........

Martin doubled back on Zimmerman, Zimmerman was returning to his car to wait for the police.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and was pounding his head with his fists, and his head against the cement sidewalk when he was shot....had he simply gone home, he would be alive.   And Martin was a thug in training with the start of a criminal lifestyle in his past...his parents failed him...and he was becoming a criminal, and from the Zimmerman shooting a violent one....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> moron....I know you can't help it...but you would think your doctors could adjust your meds.......
> 
> Why is it you are the only one dreaming about killing minorities...and then you accuse others of doing it.......that is called "Projection" get some help....
> 
> As to Zimmerman.....the kid didn't just buy candy...as a gun grabber and a lefty of course you have to lie and emote....if you didn't have those two things you couldn't communicate with the sane world........
> 
> Martin doubled back on Zimmerman, Zimmerman was returning to his car to wait for the police. Martin attacked Zimmerman and was pounding his head with his fists, and his head against the cement sidewalk when he was shot....had he simply gone home, he would be alive. And Martin was a thug in training with the start of a criminal lifestyle in his past...his parents failed him...and he was becoming a criminal, and from the Zimmerman shooting a violent one....



You mean a kid sees some weirdo stalking him, and reacts?  

Zimmerman murdered that kid in cold blood.  He was living the gun grabber's dream.  

How many times has he been arrested since that incident?  

The NRA needs to give him an award.  Him or that two year old who accidently shot his mother in a Wal-Mart.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> most felonious gun users are black. Stick that in your sheets and smoke it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We knew it wouldn't take long to get to the racism.
Click to expand...


Oh please, you have posted racist bullshit before anyone else has.    Or at least you tried to bait for it.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the definition of "accessory to murder" does not fit what they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does to me.  The whole gun industry is based on providing a steady stream of weapons to bad guys.
> 
> They'd go broke if they just sold to hunters and target shooters.
Click to expand...


Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant.  Whether is does in the actual law is what counts.  Your fantasies do not count.

Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined.  There are 9,000 murders a year.  If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....criminals are not robbing people to get shot....they rob people to get money....and if a victim pulls a weapon and threatens to shoot them.....they simply move on and find someone like you.....an unarmed, dimwit they can rob easily.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because a drug addled criminal is capable of that sort of rational thinking.
> 
> Again, finding it hard to believe you gun nuts would NOT SHOOT 99.99999% of the time you are confronted with a criminal.
> 
> Not the way most of you cheered Zimmerman like he won the superbowl.
> 
> Zimmerman was living your dream.  To plug some Darkie thug.
> 
> Who just turned out to be a kid buying candy, but man, he was a scary looking kid.
Click to expand...


Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant.  Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....criminals are not robbing people to get shot....they rob people to get money....and if a victim pulls a weapon and threatens to shoot them.....they simply move on and find someone like you.....an unarmed, dimwit they can rob easily.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because a drug addled criminal is capable of that sort of rational thinking.
> 
> Again, finding it hard to believe you gun nuts would NOT SHOOT 99.99999% of the time you are confronted with a criminal.
> 
> Not the way most of you cheered Zimmerman like he won the superbowl.
> 
> Zimmerman was living your dream.  To plug some Darkie thug.
> 
> Who just turned out to be a kid buying candy, but man, he was a scary looking kid.
Click to expand...


Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.    You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?


----------



## 2aguy

Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....criminals are not robbing people to get shot....they rob people to get money....and if a victim pulls a weapon and threatens to shoot them.....they simply move on and find someone like you.....an unarmed, dimwit they can rob easily.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because a drug addled criminal is capable of that sort of rational thinking.
> 
> Again, finding it hard to believe you gun nuts would NOT SHOOT 99.99999% of the time you are confronted with a criminal.
> 
> Not the way most of you cheered Zimmerman like he won the superbowl.
> 
> Zimmerman was living your dream.  To plug some Darkie thug.
> 
> Who just turned out to be a kid buying candy, but man, he was a scary looking kid.
Click to expand...


Do you think criminals seek out armed victims?   They are scavengers.  They want victims who won't fight back.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.



Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.  

That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared. 

And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.  



2aguy said:


> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......



Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.



ChrisL said:


> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?



Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that. 



WinterBorn said:


> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.



Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.



I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.  

But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint. 

"I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!" 

"Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here." 

"Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!" 

Yeah, don't think so.  

The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
Click to expand...


While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.

And yes, the one thing you are accurate about is that there has been more marketing towards women.  Now women take their own protection in their own hands, since waiting for the police is not an option worth considering.

And I am not a "sad panda".   I am a happy guy.  I get to hunt, target shoot, help remove invasive species and vermin, and do not worry about my girlfriend's safety when I am on the road working.    

I haven't seen any lies except the ones you told.   You know, like claiming Holmes had a "machine gun".


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
Click to expand...


He is probably suffering from depression for taking a life!  I'm sure that's not an easy thing to live with and people who are suffering tend to act out.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.
> 
> And yes, the one thing you are accurate about is that there has been more marketing towards women.  Now women take their own protection in their own hands, since waiting for the police is not an option worth considering.
> 
> And I am not a "sad panda".   I am a happy guy.  I get to hunt, target shoot, help remove invasive species and vermin, and do not worry about my girlfriend's safety when I am on the road working.
> 
> I haven't seen any lies except the ones you told.   You know, like claiming Holmes had a "machine gun".
Click to expand...


Actually, I've read that hunting is on the increase amongst women. 

I wonder why Joe wants to leave women unarmed and unable to defend themselves?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint.
> 
> "I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!"
> 
> "Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here."
> 
> "Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!"
> 
> Yeah, don't think so.
> 
> The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.
Click to expand...


Another post full of bullshit.

Armed citizens are not what the criminal wants.  That you think all the criminals out there are so impaired that they cannot think it absolutely ridiculous.

And just because someone pulls a gun to stop a crime does not mean they want to kill anyone.   The overwhelming majority of law abiding armed citizens do not want to kill someone.  These claims that gun owners are bloodthirsty is a product of your own imagination.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
Click to expand...

Being sucked into a filter is caused by a defect in the pool pump.

The correct analogy here is if a guy pushes someone into a pool and that person drowns then is the pool manufacturer culpable?

And of course the answer is NO


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.
> 
> And yes, the one thing you are accurate about is that there has been more marketing towards women.  Now women take their own protection in their own hands, since waiting for the police is not an option worth considering.
> 
> And I am not a "sad panda".   I am a happy guy.  I get to hunt, target shoot, help remove invasive species and vermin, and do not worry about my girlfriend's safety when I am on the road working.
> 
> I haven't seen any lies except the ones you told.   You know, like claiming Holmes had a "machine gun".
Click to expand...


You see?  

Hunting fishing popularity growing among women - Houston Chronicle


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint.
> 
> "I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!"
> 
> "Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here."
> 
> "Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!"
> 
> Yeah, don't think so.
> 
> The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post full of bullshit.
> 
> Armed citizens are not what the criminal wants.  That you think all the criminals out there are so impaired that they cannot think it absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> And just because someone pulls a gun to stop a crime does not mean they want to kill anyone.   The overwhelming majority of law abiding armed citizens do not want to kill someone.  These claims that gun owners are bloodthirsty is a product of your own imagination.
Click to expand...


Hmm.  I must be on this guy's ignore list or something.  He never responds to my posts!    Oh well, can't please all the people all the time!


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint.
> 
> "I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!"
> 
> "Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here."
> 
> "Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!"
> 
> Yeah, don't think so.
> 
> The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post full of bullshit.
> 
> Armed citizens are not what the criminal wants.  That you think all the criminals out there are so impaired that they cannot think it absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> And just because someone pulls a gun to stop a crime does not mean they want to kill anyone.   The overwhelming majority of law abiding armed citizens do not want to kill someone.  These claims that gun owners are bloodthirsty is a product of your own imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm.  I must be on this guy's ignore list or something.  He never responds to my posts!    Oh well, can't please all the people all the time!
Click to expand...


Typically if you make a good point he ignores it.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint.
> 
> "I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!"
> 
> "Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here."
> 
> "Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!"
> 
> Yeah, don't think so.
> 
> The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post full of bullshit.
> 
> Armed citizens are not what the criminal wants.  That you think all the criminals out there are so impaired that they cannot think it absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> And just because someone pulls a gun to stop a crime does not mean they want to kill anyone.   The overwhelming majority of law abiding armed citizens do not want to kill someone.  These claims that gun owners are bloodthirsty is a product of your own imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm.  I must be on this guy's ignore list or something.  He never responds to my posts!    Oh well, can't please all the people all the time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically if you make a good point he ignores it.
Click to expand...


I was talking about you!


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint.
> 
> "I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!"
> 
> "Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here."
> 
> "Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!"
> 
> Yeah, don't think so.
> 
> The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post full of bullshit.
> 
> Armed citizens are not what the criminal wants.  That you think all the criminals out there are so impaired that they cannot think it absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> And just because someone pulls a gun to stop a crime does not mean they want to kill anyone.   The overwhelming majority of law abiding armed citizens do not want to kill someone.  These claims that gun owners are bloodthirsty is a product of your own imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm.  I must be on this guy's ignore list or something.  He never responds to my posts!    Oh well, can't please all the people all the time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically if you make a good point he ignores it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about you!
Click to expand...


Oh hell, I apologize.  I missed the post.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.
> 
> And yes, the one thing you are accurate about is that there has been more marketing towards women.  Now women take their own protection in their own hands, since waiting for the police is not an option worth considering.
> 
> And I am not a "sad panda".   I am a happy guy.  I get to hunt, target shoot, help remove invasive species and vermin, and do not worry about my girlfriend's safety when I am on the road working.
> 
> I haven't seen any lies except the ones you told.   You know, like claiming Holmes had a "machine gun".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've read that hunting is on the increase amongst women.
> 
> I wonder why Joe wants to leave women unarmed and unable to defend themselves?
Click to expand...


Ok, now I see.  Yes, hunting is, like recreational shooting, on the rise among women.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.
> 
> And yes, the one thing you are accurate about is that there has been more marketing towards women.  Now women take their own protection in their own hands, since waiting for the police is not an option worth considering.
> 
> And I am not a "sad panda".   I am a happy guy.  I get to hunt, target shoot, help remove invasive species and vermin, and do not worry about my girlfriend's safety when I am on the road working.
> 
> I haven't seen any lies except the ones you told.   You know, like claiming Holmes had a "machine gun".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've read that hunting is on the increase amongst women.
> 
> I wonder why Joe wants to leave women unarmed and unable to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, now I see.  Yes, hunting is, like recreational shooting, on the rise among women.
Click to expand...


It must be very upsetting to Joe to know that.  Apparently he would rather women remain defenseless against potential male attackers.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it "does to you" or not is irrelevant. Whether is does in the actual law is what counts. Your fantasies do not count.
> 
> Hunters and target shooters buy more than all the thugs combined. There are 9,000 murders a year. If the gun industry only sold 9,000 guns a year it would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....it is summer so joe is out of school now....his parent's left him home alone and now he is acting out on the computer........does anyone know his parent's work numbers....they need to make sure the nanny gives him the proper meds......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because obviously he planned the whole thing because he just wanted to kill a black boy.  You can't really be THIS stupid, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant. Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.
> 
> And yes, the one thing you are accurate about is that there has been more marketing towards women.  Now women take their own protection in their own hands, since waiting for the police is not an option worth considering.
> 
> And I am not a "sad panda".   I am a happy guy.  I get to hunt, target shoot, help remove invasive species and vermin, and do not worry about my girlfriend's safety when I am on the road working.
> 
> I haven't seen any lies except the ones you told.   You know, like claiming Holmes had a "machine gun".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've read that hunting is on the increase amongst women.
> 
> I wonder why Joe wants to leave women unarmed and unable to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, now I see.  Yes, hunting is, like recreational shooting, on the rise among women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must be very upsetting to Joe to know that.  Apparently he would rather women remain defenseless against potential male attackers.
Click to expand...


He prefers gov't control of everything.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hunting is declining.  Has been for decades.
> 
> That's when the gun industry decided they needed to sell "fear".   They needed to sell pink handguns to women scared of rape.  they needed to sell handguns to george Zimmerman.  They needed people to be really scared.
> 
> And the best way to do that?  Make sure that the thugs get easy access to guns!  Weak background checks? Check.  Gun Show loopholes?  Check! private sellers with no accountability? Check.
> 
> Your concession of the argument is duly noted.  I know it's hard to be a gun nut and live in your own reality that everything is peachy.
> 
> Uh, actually, yeah, I do.  I think the guy is a sociopath.  One only has to look at his behavior SINCE the Klan Lady's Auxiliary acquitted him to see that.
> 
> Yes, Nazis who murder federal agents need to have deadly force used against them. Yes, gun sellers who arm thugs need to go to prison.  And yes, I've pointed out all the lies of the gun industry, which no doubt makes you a sad panda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.
> 
> And yes, the one thing you are accurate about is that there has been more marketing towards women.  Now women take their own protection in their own hands, since waiting for the police is not an option worth considering.
> 
> And I am not a "sad panda".   I am a happy guy.  I get to hunt, target shoot, help remove invasive species and vermin, and do not worry about my girlfriend's safety when I am on the road working.
> 
> I haven't seen any lies except the ones you told.   You know, like claiming Holmes had a "machine gun".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've read that hunting is on the increase amongst women.
> 
> I wonder why Joe wants to leave women unarmed and unable to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, now I see.  Yes, hunting is, like recreational shooting, on the rise among women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must be very upsetting to Joe to know that.  Apparently he would rather women remain defenseless against potential male attackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He prefers gov't control of everything.
Click to expand...


And for people to be defenseless against criminals, because he knows damn well that all the gun restrictions in the world won't stop a criminal who's intent is killing people.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> We knew it wouldn't take long to get to the racism.



yeah telling the truth is racism to the bed wetting lefties.  Why should white Americans-the group with the largest number-per capita and real numbers-of gun owners- be blamed for high rates of gun violence that is caused mainly by blacks?  our rates of gun violence aren't any higher than rates of whites in those Eurosocialist states with nanny government gun control that a bedwetter like you craves?


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> Considering you want to send someone to prison when they have broken no law, cheered the murder of a mother holding her baby, and have made all sorts of outrageous claims and lies, whether you believe that 99.9% of the gun owners don't shoot a criminal is hardly relevant.  Your distorted mind may not grasp the actual facts.



JoeB hates gun owners over how they voted.  So all his rants about public safety and crime is nothing more than a facade the turd brained liar spews to cover his real motivations.

He's a Demotard who wants more socialists in office


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint.
> 
> "I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!"
> 
> "Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here."
> 
> "Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!"
> 
> Yeah, don't think so.
> 
> The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.
Click to expand...





> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's




Actually, the average number of gun uses.....without counting police and military....would be 2 million a year......not 5.....and of the 19 studies done over 40 years on defensive gun uses....not one is below the number of 764,000 defensive gun uses each year...........

And again.....why so few dead violent criminals....they don't want to get shot, and victims don't want to kill....moron.....


----------



## ChrisL

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think criminals seek out armed victims? They are scavengers. They want victims who won't fight back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think criminals can't tell the armed from the unarmed. I think that when you are drugged up lookign to score, you aren't going to be intimidated by a gun 99.9999% of the time.  Some of those guys are going to make a move and get shot.
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's and only 200 cases where they get shot in the process.   That means gun nuts and druggie thugs showing Marquis of Queensbury kind of restraint.
> 
> "I'm going to rob you, dear boy! I need a fix of that Nose Candy!!!"
> 
> "Oh, pip, pip, I have a gun here."
> 
> "Oh, druthers, I guess I am going to have to move along. Pip Pip!"
> 
> Yeah, don't think so.
> 
> The reality is- crimes are over before the gun nut can even think to pull his gun.  That's why you only have 200 justifable homicides out of 11,100 a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you guys would claim we have 5 million DGU's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the average number of gun uses.....without counting police and military....would be 2 million a year......not 5.....and of the 19 studies done over 40 years on defensive gun uses....not one is below the number of 764,000 defensive gun uses each year...........
> 
> And again.....why so few dead violent criminals....they don't want to get shot, and victims don't want to kill....moron.....
Click to expand...


People who want to limit MY rights because of their paranoia really anger me!


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> While the number of hunters may be in decline, they still represent far more gun sales than the murders do.



Which wasn't what I was arguing, but never mind.


OOOOOOOOOOKay, going to explain it to you SLLLLOOOOOWLY.  It's not the profits from Murders the Gun Industry wants.  It's the profits of all the people with tiny peckers who get all scared when they watch the news and hear about crime.  That's what the gun industry, which used to be FOR sensible gun laws, changed it's business practices.  They realized scared white people were it's niche market.   How do we keep them scared? Make sure just enough guns get to the criminal element so they want more of them. 



ChrisL said:


> He is probably suffering from depression for taking a life! I'm sure that's not an easy thing to live with and people who are suffering tend to act out.



Yes, he was so depressed he got on Hannity and did a victory lap.  Then he went to the gun maker to do a photo shoot that even the gun maker realized was a bad idea.  (what happens when you let the kids make the business decisions.)



ChrisL said:


> It must be very upsetting to Joe to know that. Apparently he would rather women remain defenseless against potential male attackers.



You mean like the lady who got shot with her own gun, which I posted to earlier in the thread?  Or the woman who found her dead son in the basement after he killed himself wiht that gun she bought for protection.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> And for people to be defenseless against criminals, because he knows damn well that all the gun restrictions in the world won't stop a criminal who's intent is killing people.



Yet, oddly, every other country that has restricted guns has a FRACTION of our murder and crime rates.   We have 16,000 homicides a year, 11,000 with guns.  Germany - which by the way, only LIMITS who can own a gun -  has 600 a year with only 250 committed with guns.  Japan, which BANS gun ownership in its constitution, has only 400 murders a year, only 11 with guns.  



turtledude said:


> yeah telling the truth is racism to the bed wetting lefties. Why should white Americans-the group with the largest number-per capita and real numbers-of gun owners- be blamed for high rates of gun violence that is caused mainly by blacks? our rates of gun violence aren't any higher than rates of whites in those Eurosocialist states with nanny government gun control that a bedwetter like you craves?



I know that's probably what you read on some website, but the fact is, most murder victims in the US are... wait for it... WHITE. 

FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> I know that's probably what you read on some website, but the fact is, most murder victims in the US are... wait for it... WHITE.
> 
> FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6



Hey shit for brains-most murderers in the USA are BLACK. that is what really matters.  and yes, white murder victims are often criminals.  

Why do you keep pretending your anti gungasms are based on crime when you have already admitted you are upset that gun owners tend to vote for Republicans and you are a hard core government tit suckler


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Hey shit for brains-most murderers in the USA are BLACK. that is what really matters. and yes, white murder victims are often criminals.



Did you not read the FBI's data, that says otherwise? Or were the numbers too complicated for you? 



turtledude said:


> Why do you keep pretending your anti gungasms are based on crime when you have already admitted you are upset that gun owners tend to vote for Republicans and you are a hard core government tit suckler



Weren't you the one who claimed to be a federal agent.  (That's when you weren't a self-made millionaire). Doesn't' that technically make you the government teet sucker?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Weren't you the one who claimed to be a federal agent.  (That's when you weren't a self-made millionaire). Doesn't' that technically make you the government teet sucker?



No I was born rich and made myself even richer.  started with about 10 million, now worth about 50 million.  that is how I could afford to take my honors Ivy league law degree and work for the feds which was far more interesting than working for one of the 6 wall street firms that gave me offers

oh BTW, every quarter I write a check to the IRS bigger than the yearly paycheck I got from the Feds.  so no I was working for free and then some 

but lets get back to your anti gun idiocy.  blacks commit more than half the murders in the USA

blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for people to be defenseless against criminals, because he knows damn well that all the gun restrictions in the world won't stop a criminal who's intent is killing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, oddly, every other country that has restricted guns has a FRACTION of our murder and crime rates.   We have 16,000 homicides a year, 11,000 with guns.  Germany - which by the way, only LIMITS who can own a gun -  has 600 a year with only 250 committed with guns.  Japan, which BANS gun ownership in its constitution, has only 400 murders a year, only 11 with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah telling the truth is racism to the bed wetting lefties. Why should white Americans-the group with the largest number-per capita and real numbers-of gun owners- be blamed for high rates of gun violence that is caused mainly by blacks? our rates of gun violence aren't any higher than rates of whites in those Eurosocialist states with nanny government gun control that a bedwetter like you craves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that's probably what you read on some website, but the fact is, most murder victims in the US are... wait for it... WHITE.
> 
> FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6
Click to expand...


So if you take away the guns, we have 5,000 homicides, Germany has 350 and Japan has 11.    This proves, once and for all, that the US is a violent culture.   And that is assuming that all 11,000 gun murders would not happen.   

Of course, it also assumes that there would be no black market guns, which is ridiculous.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> So if you take away the guns, we have 5,000 homicides, Germany has 350 and Japan has 11.    This proves, once and for all, that the US is a violent culture.   And that is assuming that all 11,000 gun murders would not happen.
> 
> Of course, it also assumes that there would be no black market guns, which is ridiculous.



does anyone truly believe JoeB's rants are motivated by a public safety issue?  COME ON FOLKS, he has already admitted he hates gun owners based on how he believes gun owners voted


----------



## Muhammed

swimming 





ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers.  It is silly beyond belief.  So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?  No . . .
> 
> It is total BS.  People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.
Click to expand...

Well if you are a super-scumbag you would sue the pool manufactuer, the grunts who installed it, the real estate agent who sold you the property, the municipal water company, and that 7 year old girl down the street who failed to infom you that people can drown in swimming pools despite her knowledge that this could happen.

And her little dog too!


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> No I was born rich and made myself even richer. started with about 10 million, now worth about 50 million. that is how I could afford to take my honors Ivy league law degree and work for the feds which was far more interesting than working for one of the 6 wall street firms that gave me offers



Oh, is that your story now? You have more careers than Barbie.  Were you an astronaut, too? 



turtledude said:


> but lets get back to your anti gun idiocy. blacks commit more than half the murders in the USA



No, they really don't.  Again, go back to the link I posted.  they are committing more than their proportion of the population do, but not "half".  

Whites committed 2755 murders. 
Blacks committed 2767 murders
Other races committed 270 murders. 

Your Original claim was "our rates of gun violence aren't any higher than rates of whites in those Eurosocialist states with nanny government gun control that a bedwetter like you craves?"

Except that isn't true. 

The United Kingdom had only 48 gun homicides.
Germany only had 258 gun homicides. 

These countries have nowhere near the homicide rates we do. 



turtledude said:


> does anyone truly believe JoeB's rants are motivated by a public safety issue? COME ON FOLKS, he has already admitted he hates gun owners based on how he believes gun owners voted



Is that going to be your whine every time you get caught spewing gun nut lies?  Because I'll take that as a concession. 



WinterBorn said:


> So if you take away the guns, we have 5,000 homicides, Germany has 350 and Japan has 11. This proves, once and for all, that the US is a violent culture. And that is assuming that all 11,000 gun murders would not happen.



No, it proves that guns make it easier to kill.  I'd happily reduce the murder rate by 2/3rds.  

Does it mean we need to still fix the other problems? Yes. Yes we do.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I was born rich and made myself even richer. started with about 10 million, now worth about 50 million. that is how I could afford to take my honors Ivy league law degree and work for the feds which was far more interesting than working for one of the 6 wall street firms that gave me offers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that your story now? You have more careers than Barbie.  Were you an astronaut, too?
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> but lets get back to your anti gun idiocy. blacks commit more than half the murders in the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they really don't.  Again, go back to the link I posted.  they are committing more than their proportion of the population do, but not "half".
> 
> Whites committed 2755 murders.
> Blacks committed 2767 murders
> Other races committed 270 murders.
> 
> Your Original claim was "our rates of gun violence aren't any higher than rates of whites in those Eurosocialist states with nanny government gun control that a bedwetter like you craves?"
> 
> Except that isn't true.
> 
> The United Kingdom had only 48 gun homicides.
> Germany only had 258 gun homicides.
> 
> These countries have nowhere near the homicide rates we do.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> does anyone truly believe JoeB's rants are motivated by a public safety issue? COME ON FOLKS, he has already admitted he hates gun owners based on how he believes gun owners voted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that going to be your whine every time you get caught spewing gun nut lies?  Because I'll take that as a concession.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you take away the guns, we have 5,000 homicides, Germany has 350 and Japan has 11. This proves, once and for all, that the US is a violent culture. And that is assuming that all 11,000 gun murders would not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it proves that guns make it easier to kill.  I'd happily reduce the murder rate by 2/3rds.
> 
> Does it mean we need to still fix the other problems? Yes. Yes we do.
Click to expand...


Yes, it DOES prove we are a violent culture.  And it is the violent culture that should be addressed, not the tools used.   Your solution to violence is like solving the problem of a leaking roof by putting a bucket under it.  Sure, it prevents water on the floor.  But it does not address the actual issue.

As for the racial issue, comparing the number of murders without comparing the relative population size ruins your argument.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, it DOES prove we are a violent culture. And it is the violent culture that should be addressed, not the tools used. Your solution to violence is like solving the problem of a leaking roof by putting a bucket under it. Sure, it prevents water on the floor. But it does not address the actual issue.
> 
> As for the racial issue, comparing the number of murders without comparing the relative population size ruins your argument.



uh, no, it doesn't.  The argument made by Federal Barbie was that if you take out the Darkies, we have a murder rate comparable to the Europeans, which we clearly don't.  Even limited to White people, we are the most violent country in the developed world.  

Guns are A HUGE part of that.


----------



## Skull Pilot

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I was born rich and made myself even richer. started with about 10 million, now worth about 50 million. that is how I could afford to take my honors Ivy league law degree and work for the feds which was far more interesting than working for one of the 6 wall street firms that gave me offers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that your story now? You have more careers than Barbie.  Were you an astronaut, too?
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> but lets get back to your anti gun idiocy. blacks commit more than half the murders in the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they really don't.  Again, go back to the link I posted.  they are committing more than their proportion of the population do, but not "half".
> 
> Whites committed 2755 murders.
> Blacks committed 2767 murders
> Other races committed 270 murders.
> 
> Your Original claim was "our rates of gun violence aren't any higher than rates of whites in those Eurosocialist states with nanny government gun control that a bedwetter like you craves?"
> 
> Except that isn't true.
> 
> The United Kingdom had only 48 gun homicides.
> Germany only had 258 gun homicides.
> 
> These countries have nowhere near the homicide rates we do.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> does anyone truly believe JoeB's rants are motivated by a public safety issue? COME ON FOLKS, he has already admitted he hates gun owners based on how he believes gun owners voted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that going to be your whine every time you get caught spewing gun nut lies?  Because I'll take that as a concession.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you take away the guns, we have 5,000 homicides, Germany has 350 and Japan has 11. This proves, once and for all, that the US is a violent culture. And that is assuming that all 11,000 gun murders would not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it proves that guns make it easier to kill.  I'd happily reduce the murder rate by 2/3rds.
> 
> Does it mean we need to still fix the other problems? Yes. Yes we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it DOES prove we are a violent culture.  And it is the violent culture that should be addressed, not the tools used.   Your solution to violence is like solving the problem of a leaking roof by putting a bucket under it.  Sure, it prevents water on the floor.  But it does not address the actual issue.
> 
> As for the racial issue, comparing the number of murders without comparing the relative population size ruins your argument.
Click to expand...


Only simple minded people like Joe have to stick with the use of absolute figures

Statistics is beyond their ability


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it DOES prove we are a violent culture. And it is the violent culture that should be addressed, not the tools used. Your solution to violence is like solving the problem of a leaking roof by putting a bucket under it. Sure, it prevents water on the floor. But it does not address the actual issue.
> 
> As for the racial issue, comparing the number of murders without comparing the relative population size ruins your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, it doesn't.  The argument made by Federal Barbie was that if you take out the Darkies, we have a murder rate comparable to the Europeans, which we clearly don't.  Even limited to White people, we are the most violent country in the developed world.
> 
> Guns are A HUGE part of that.
Click to expand...


If you take out just a few large cities with gang problems our murder rate plummets.

Tell me what's the murder rate of a small Midwest town compared to that of LA, Chicago, Oakland or Baltimore?


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Only simple minded people like Joe have to stick with the use of absolute figures
> 
> Statistics is beyond their ability



There's a statistic where our level of gun violence looks good?  

Even Benjamin Disreali would be horrified by that level of Mendacity.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only simple minded people like Joe have to stick with the use of absolute figures
> 
> Statistics is beyond their ability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a statistic where our level of gun violence looks good?
> 
> Even Benjamin Disreali would be horrified by that level of Mendacity.
Click to expand...


You tout Europe as having good gun death stats.

We have many areas of the country where our gun death stats are as low as any European country.

We have a gang violence problem that is skewing our numbers.

So take out those outliers and what do you get?


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> You tout Europe as having good gun death stats.
> 
> We have many areas of the country where our gun death stats are as low as any European country.



Yeah. The parts where people don't actually live.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> We have a gang violence problem that is skewing our numbers.



No, we don't. The "Gang problem" is only 2000 out of some 16,000 homicides a year. Most homicides are domestic disputes, and an easy access to guns makes those a lot worse.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tout Europe as having good gun death stats.
> 
> We have many areas of the country where our gun death stats are as low as any European country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. The parts where people don't actually live.
Click to expand...


Funny the murder rate in my town has been ZERO for over 25 years


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a gang violence problem that is skewing our numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. The "Gang problem" is only 2000 out of some 16,000 homicides a year. Most homicides are domestic disputes, and an easy access to guns makes those a lot worse.
Click to expand...


your 16000 homicides are not ALL gun deaths are they?

Our death by firearm stat is 3.5 per 100,000 or .0035%

Seems pretty fucking good to me


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it DOES prove we are a violent culture. And it is the violent culture that should be addressed, not the tools used. Your solution to violence is like solving the problem of a leaking roof by putting a bucket under it. Sure, it prevents water on the floor. But it does not address the actual issue.
> 
> As for the racial issue, comparing the number of murders without comparing the relative population size ruins your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, it doesn't.  The argument made by Federal Barbie was that if you take out the Darkies, we have a murder rate comparable to the Europeans, which we clearly don't.  Even limited to White people, we are the most violent country in the developed world.
> 
> Guns are A HUGE part of that.
Click to expand...


Guns are a tool used by violent people.  The numbers show that Americans commit more violent crimes without guns.  Your claim that all the gun murders would simply not happen is nonsense.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> your 16000 homicides are not ALL gun deaths are they?
> 
> Our death by firearm stat is 3.5 per 100,000 or .0035%
> 
> Seems pretty fucking good to me



Compard to other industrialied countries, it isn't.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Guns are a tool used by violent people. The numbers show that Americans commit more violent crimes without guns. Your claim that all the gun murders would simply not happen is nonsense.



Again, I'd take any reduction I can get and call it  a day. 

IF we banned guns tomorrow, the murder rate would drop.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a tool used by violent people. The numbers show that Americans commit more violent crimes without guns. Your claim that all the gun murders would simply not happen is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'd take any reduction I can get and call it  a day.
> 
> IF we banned guns tomorrow, the murder rate would drop.
Click to expand...


The murder rate has been dropping steadily for decades.   If you want it to drop faster, address the reasons for the violence, not the tools.

And the continuing decline in gun murders has happened during a time when the number of CCW permits has grown exponentially.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The murder rate has been dropping steadily for decades. If you want it to drop faster, address the reasons for the violence, not the tools.
> 
> And the continuing decline in gun murders has happened during a time when the number of CCW permits has grown exponentially.



Correlation is not causality. 

The main reason why the murder rate has dropped is because as a population, we are getting older.  

Nothing to do with gun nuts walking around with guns, not stopping crimes, ever.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murder rate has been dropping steadily for decades. If you want it to drop faster, address the reasons for the violence, not the tools.
> 
> And the continuing decline in gun murders has happened during a time when the number of CCW permits has grown exponentially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correlation is not causality.
> 
> The main reason why the murder rate has dropped is because as a population, we are getting older.
> 
> Nothing to do with gun nuts walking around with guns, not stopping crimes, ever.
Click to expand...


This is simply your opinion.  And its funny that you do not want the correlation in this nation to be used as causation, but you continually want to use the lack of firearms in other, culturally different nations, as proof of your claims.

But lets look at the racial element again, and compare it to what you want to do.

Whites committed 2755 murders.
Blacks committed 2767 murders
Other races committed 270 murders.

So if we banned blacks (13.2% of the population) the murder rate would drop by half.  This is as rational an answer as your wish to ban all guns.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> This is simply your opinion. And its funny that you do not want the correlation in this nation to be used as causation, but you continually want to use the lack of firearms in other, culturally different nations, as proof of your claims.



Yes, if it was just ONE country that banned firearms and had a low murder rate, you could claim culture. 

When it's ALL of them and the only thing they have in common is limiting the means of actually doing the deed, then we have us a TREND.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply your opinion. And its funny that you do not want the correlation in this nation to be used as causation, but you continually want to use the lack of firearms in other, culturally different nations, as proof of your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if it was just ONE country that banned firearms and had a low murder rate, you could claim culture.
> 
> When it's ALL of them and the only thing they have in common is limiting the means of actually doing the deed, then we have us a TREND.
Click to expand...


Indeed you do have a trend.  But not proof of what would happen here.    Since none of the nations you use for comparison has nearly the non-gun violence that we do, there is ample evidence that your claims are false.

Again, the non-gun violence rates in the US show us to be a violent culture.   You dismiss Japan's extremely high suicide rates as being part of their culture.  But you want to blame our violent culture on a single inanimate object.   Simply nonsense.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for people to be defenseless against criminals, because he knows damn well that all the gun restrictions in the world won't stop a criminal who's intent is killing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, oddly, every other country that has restricted guns has a FRACTION of our murder and crime rates.   We have 16,000 homicides a year, 11,000 with guns.  Germany - which by the way, only LIMITS who can own a gun -  has 600 a year with only 250 committed with guns.  Japan, which BANS gun ownership in its constitution, has only 400 murders a year, only 11 with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah telling the truth is racism to the bed wetting lefties. Why should white Americans-the group with the largest number-per capita and real numbers-of gun owners- be blamed for high rates of gun violence that is caused mainly by blacks? our rates of gun violence aren't any higher than rates of whites in those Eurosocialist states with nanny government gun control that a bedwetter like you craves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that's probably what you read on some website, but the fact is, most murder victims in the US are... wait for it... WHITE.
> 
> FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6
Click to expand...


We have a bigger population than any of those countries.  We also have a gang problem, whether you want to be honest and acknowledge that or not.  There are TONS of unsolved murders in the "hood."  You should educate yourself, watch some documentaries, do some research about gangs so that you can see just how big of a problem they actually are in this country.  

Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> your 16000 homicides are not ALL gun deaths are they?
> 
> Our death by firearm stat is 3.5 per 100,000 or .0035%
> 
> Seems pretty fucking good to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compard to other industrialied countries, it isn't.
Click to expand...


So what?

In other industrialized countries you get thrown in jail for saying the wrong things

A .0035% chance of getting killed by a gun without trampling over our rights is pretty good odds in my book


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Indeed you do have a trend. But not proof of what would happen here. Since none of the nations you use for comparison has nearly the non-gun violence that we do, there is ample evidence that your claims are false.
> 
> Again, the non-gun violence rates in the US show us to be a violent culture. You dismiss Japan's extremely high suicide rates as being part of their culture. But you want to blame our violent culture on a single inanimate object. Simply nonsense.



Well, okay, obviously, you are going to reject FOREIGN exmaples of less guns, less murder...

So let's go with an AMERICAN one.  

Connecticut s gun law linked to large homicide drop - CNN.com

To assess the effect of this law, researchers identified states that had levels of gun-related homicide similar to Connecticut before 1995. These include Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maryland. When the researchers compared these states to Connecticut between 1995 and 2005, they found the level of gun-related homicide in Connecticut dropped below that of comparable states.

Based on the rates in these comparable states, the researchers estimated Connecticut would have had 740 gun murders if the law had not been enacted. Instead, the state had 444, representing a 40% decrease.

The researchers also looked at rates of nonfirearm homicide and found no difference between Connecticut and other states across the time frame of the study (1985-2005), suggesting the drop in gun-related murders in Connecticut was not simply due to waning murder rates in the state overall.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> In other industrialized countries you get thrown in jail for saying the wrong things



Really? Which ones?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> We have a bigger population than any of those countries. We also have a gang problem, whether you want to be honest and acknowledge that or not. There are TONS of unsolved murders in the "hood." You should educate yourself, watch some documentaries, do some research about gangs so that you can see just how big of a problem they actually are in this country.



I live in Chicago which has a huge gang problem.  But here's the thing.  Gang Homicides represent only about 10% of all homicides committed.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other industrialized countries you get thrown in jail for saying the wrong things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Which ones?
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24iht-edrojan.html?_r=0


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other industrialized countries you get thrown in jail for saying the wrong things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Which ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24iht-edrojan.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


That's the best you can come up with, that Neo-Nazis can't deny the Holocaust happened?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a bigger population than any of those countries. We also have a gang problem, whether you want to be honest and acknowledge that or not. There are TONS of unsolved murders in the "hood." You should educate yourself, watch some documentaries, do some research about gangs so that you can see just how big of a problem they actually are in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Chicago which has a huge gang problem.  But here's the thing.  Gang Homicides represent only about 10% of all homicides committed.
Click to expand...


If you had read my link, you would have learned that this not the case.  The problem is that there are SO MANY gang related murders that the police have a huge back load.  A lot of them go unsolved and become cold cases.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a bigger population than any of those countries. We also have a gang problem, whether you want to be honest and acknowledge that or not. There are TONS of unsolved murders in the "hood." You should educate yourself, watch some documentaries, do some research about gangs so that you can see just how big of a problem they actually are in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Chicago which has a huge gang problem.  But here's the thing.  Gang Homicides represent only about 10% of all homicides committed.
Click to expand...



And you are a moron still......the Chicago Tribune says you are wrong....


Obama has to confront the gangs - tribunedigital-chicagotribune


Chicago police estimate that roughly 80 percent of homicides in the city are gang-related. There are about 100,000 gang members here.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed you do have a trend. But not proof of what would happen here. Since none of the nations you use for comparison has nearly the non-gun violence that we do, there is ample evidence that your claims are false.
> 
> Again, the non-gun violence rates in the US show us to be a violent culture. You dismiss Japan's extremely high suicide rates as being part of their culture. But you want to blame our violent culture on a single inanimate object. Simply nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, okay, obviously, you are going to reject FOREIGN exmaples of less guns, less murder...
> 
> So let's go with an AMERICAN one.
> 
> Connecticut s gun law linked to large homicide drop - CNN.com
> 
> To assess the effect of this law, researchers identified states that had levels of gun-related homicide similar to Connecticut before 1995. These include Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maryland. When the researchers compared these states to Connecticut between 1995 and 2005, they found the level of gun-related homicide in Connecticut dropped below that of comparable states.
> 
> Based on the rates in these comparable states, the researchers estimated Connecticut would have had 740 gun murders if the law had not been enacted. Instead, the state had 444, representing a 40% decrease.
> 
> The researchers also looked at rates of nonfirearm homicide and found no difference between Connecticut and other states across the time frame of the study (1985-2005), suggesting the drop in gun-related murders in Connecticut was not simply due to waning murder rates in the state overall.
Click to expand...



Yeah......joe...you need to stop trusting gun grabber studies...they lie.....this is backed by gun grabber bloomberg....

Bloomberg s School of Public Health Cherry Picked Claim that firearm homicides in Connecticut fell 40 because of a gun licensing law - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org


As the authors of the study note,  from 1995 to 2005 the firearm homicide rate in Connecticut indeed fell from 3.13 to 1.88 per 100,000 people, representing a 40% drop over a ten-year period (“We estimate that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place“).  However, unexplained is that the firearms homicide rate was falling even faster immediately prior to the licensing law.  From 1993 to 1995, the Connecticut firearms homicide rate fell from 4.5 to 3.13 per 100,000 residents, which means more than a 30% drop in just two years. This represented a greater decline than the 17% national decline over those two years.  Of course, Rudolph and his co-authors do not address this inconvenient fact (though if one looks at their Figure 1 on page 3 this preceding drop is clearly visible).

Their results are also extremely sensitive to the last year that they pick.  The firearm homicide rate in 2006 was actually back up to 2.62.  Indeed, with the exception of just one year from 2006 to 2010, there is only one year where the ratio of Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate to that for the US as a whole is lower than it was in 1995.

To see another way how sensitive the results are to the dates chosen, while it is true that Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate fell by 40% from 1995 to 2005, it only fell by 12.5% between 1995 and 2010.  Meanwhile from 1995 and 2010, the US firearm homicide rate fell by 39% and the Northeast firearm homicide rate fell by 31%.

The authors say that they limit the data to 2005 because one paper that they cite looked at only 10 years after a law that they were investigating (p. 4: “We conclude the post-law period in 2005 to limit extrapolation in our predictions of the counterfactual to 10 years, as has been done previously“).  But just because a study on to cigarette smoking looks at 12 years (not 10 as claimed (Proposition 99went into effect on January 1, 1989 and their sample went until 2000)) after the law was in effect, doesn’t explain why a study on crime would do the same thing.  Indeed, the reason given by the authors that Rudolph et al. cite isn’t applicable to the current paper (p. 16: “It ends in 2000 because at about this time anti-tobacco measures were implemented across many states, invalidating them as potential control units“).  There was no similar adoption across the states of handgun licensing laws.  Yet, if Rudolph et al. had gone for this 12th year as the study that they cite does, it would have dramatically altered their results.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> If you had read my link, you would have learned that this not the case. The problem is that there are SO MANY gang related murders that the police have a huge back load. A lot of them go unsolved and become cold cases.



I don't read links from gun nuts.  

Government figures are that less than 2000 homicides  year are "gang related".  The rest are domestic disputes.  And 70% of them wouldn't happen if we controlled who can get a gun in this country like every other developed nation does.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Yeah......joe...you need to stop trusting gun grabber studies...they lie.....this is backed by gun grabber bloomberg....



Yawn. Of course they do. And the other countries lie, and doctors lie, and the government lies.  

You can only trust the NRA which is owned by the gun manufacturers and has an interest in selling you more g uns.  More guns.   You need more guns.    Keep repeating that.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Chicago police estimate that roughly 80 percent of homicides in the city are gang-related. There are about 100,000 gang members here.



Chicago only represents 400 murders out of the 16000 we have every year.  

If you get killed, it's more than likely to be by someone you know.


----------



## Ringel05

FYI, I've been reading JoeB's posts all over the board, this guy's not just a liberal leftist, he's an extreme progressive leftist who honestly makes Mao Tse Tung look positively conservative.  He's also an anti-Israeli conspiracy nut (thinks the Zionists control America).  This guy's a nut job.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had read my link, you would have learned that this not the case. The problem is that there are SO MANY gang related murders that the police have a huge back load. A lot of them go unsolved and become cold cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't read links from gun nuts.
> 
> Government figures are that less than 2000 homicides  year are "gang related".  The rest are domestic disputes.  And 70% of them wouldn't happen if we controlled who can get a gun in this country like every other developed nation does.
Click to expand...


Moron..we do control who can have guns.   Felons are not allowed, by law, to own or carry guns.   Europe has even stricter gun laws and their criminals also get guns easily......

and you said in Chicago gang killings were only 10%.... And the Chicago tribune quoted the police that it was 80%


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other industrialized countries you get thrown in jail for saying the wrong things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Which ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24iht-edrojan.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the best you can come up with, that Neo-Nazis can't deny the Holocaust happened?
Click to expand...

Didn't read the whole thing huh? That was merely one example there are many more

There are many countries that you want to emulate that allow the stifling of rights we take for granted.

Feel free to move to any one you wish.

A .0035% chance of getting shot is a ridiculous thing to be afraid of.

In fact getting killed by a gun doesn't even make the top 15 causes of death.

So why don't you worry about something that actually matters?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron..we do control who can have guns. Felons are not allowed, by law, to own or carry guns. Europe has even stricter gun laws and their criminals also get guns easily......
> 
> and you said in Chicago gang killings were only 10%.... And the Chicago tribune quoted the police that it was 80%



No, i said NATIONALLY, gang murders are only 10% of all homicides.  

NATIONALLY.  This is according to the Dept. of Justice.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Didn't read the whole thing huh? That was merely one example there are many more



yeah, but if that was the best you had, that was kind of weak.  



Skull Pilot said:


> In fact getting killed by a gun doesn't even make the top 15 causes of death.



No, but it is 100% preventable.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't read the whole thing huh? That was merely one example there are many more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, but if that was the best you had, that was kind of weak.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact getting killed by a gun doesn't even make the top 15 causes of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it is 100% preventable.
Click to expand...



No it isn't...criminals will get guns and murder people.....even if you ban them for victims and serve those victims up for rape, robbery and murder......


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> No it isn't...criminals will get guns and murder people.....even if you ban them for victims and serve those victims up for rape, robbery and murder......



1) DGU"s almost never happen. 

2)  Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic fights and accidents.  "Criminal" gun use is a small fraction of the 32,000 gun deaths we have.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> If you had read my link, you would have learned that this not the case.  The problem is that there are SO MANY gang related murders that the police have a huge back load.  A lot of them go unsolved and become cold cases.




In cincinnati, blacks wear T-shirts that say DON'T SNITCH.  black leaders  preach that message.  Our former Black Chief of Police-now in Detroit, used to commonly complain that this attitude caused lots of black on black crime to go unsolved.  I worked with cops all the time and even black cops said they got tired of investigating shootings only to have everyone in the area suffer from collective amnesia

stuff like this I used to see all the time when I had to go down to the state courthouse.

DoNt Be A SnItCh 7391 Clothing Co. Tee Shirt Zazzle

Stop Snitchin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 1) DGU"s almost never happen.
> 
> 2)  Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic fights and accidents.  "Criminal" gun use is a small fraction of the 32,000 gun deaths we have.



so all your caterwauling for more laws is a waste of time.  no law will prevent a suicide nor an accident

you just castrated  your own silly facade for gun bans

and why do you keep talking about this stuff

you have already admitted that it is the politics of gun owners that causes your garment soiling rants about gun owners-not crime or accidental shootings


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Chicago only represents 400 murders out of the 16000 we have every year.
> 
> If you get killed, it's more than likely to be by someone you know.



someone you know includes

rival gangbangers

a guy who cases an establishment and then goes in and robs the place

a junkie who shoots his pusher

a pusher who shoots his junkie customer

an ex who stalks and kills a former girlfriend


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't read the whole thing huh? That was merely one example there are many more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, but if that was the best you had, that was kind of weak.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact getting killed by a gun doesn't even make the top 15 causes of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it is 100% preventable.
Click to expand...


So waste your time on a .0035% chance 

Typical of control freak morons like yourself.

BTW murder is not 100% preventable.  Never has been never will be.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> In cincinnati, blacks wear T-shirts that say DON'T SNITCH. black leaders preach that message. Our former Black Chief of Police-now in Detroit, used to commonly complain that this attitude caused lots of black on black crime to go unsolved. I worked with cops all the time and even black cops said they got tired of investigating shootings only to have everyone in the area suffer from collective amnesia



which has nothing to do with the fact that only 2000 gang murders occur a year out of 16,000 homicides.  

Yeah, the communities don't trust the police.  If I were in that community, where you have 12 year old Tamir Rice being shot because he had a toy gun, or Walter Scott being shot in the back 8 times, or Michael Brown being shot when he had his hands up or the Police giving Zimmerman a pat on the back after he shot an unarmed Trayvon Martin, I wouldn't trust the police all that much either.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> so all your caterwauling for more laws is a waste of time. no law will prevent a suicide nor an accident



Sure they will.  Ban guns, people won't kill themselves with them. Ban guns, kids won't find them and have accidents.  

Ban guns, and that domestic argument in the trailer park over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best probably won't turn fatal.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> Sure they will.  Ban guns, people won't kill themselves with them. Ban guns, kids won't find them and have accidents.
> 
> Ban guns, and that domestic argument in the trailer park over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best probably won't turn fatal.



you are too stupid to understand that the issue is stopping suicides vs suicides with guns.  You are like the moron in England who brayed that once handguns were banned, CRIME WITH LEGAL Handguns decreased.  and there would be millions of deaths if handguns were banned  especially among those trying to enforce a ban and those who pushed for one I suspect


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> you are too stupid to understand that the issue is stopping suicides vs suicides with guns. You are like the moron in England who brayed that once handguns were banned, CRIME WITH LEGAL Handguns decreased. and there would be millions of deaths if handguns were banned especially among those trying to enforce a ban and those who pushed for one I suspect



Ask David Koresh how much sympathy Gun Nuts who shoot federal agents get...

Oh, that's right, you can't. 

Point is, you outlaw guns, the suicide rate WILL drop.  Just like when the UK got rid of coal gas in the ovens, the suicide rate dropped in the UK..


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are too stupid to understand that the issue is stopping suicides vs suicides with guns. You are like the moron in England who brayed that once handguns were banned, CRIME WITH LEGAL Handguns decreased. and there would be millions of deaths if handguns were banned especially among those trying to enforce a ban and those who pushed for one I suspect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask David Koresh how much sympathy Gun Nuts who shoot federal agents get...
> 
> Oh, that's right, you can't.
> 
> Point is, you outlaw guns, the suicide rate WILL drop.  Just like when the UK got rid of coal gas in the ovens, the suicide rate dropped in the UK..
Click to expand...


You can't prove the suicide rate will drop.

If people don't have a gun they will just use another method.

Anyway if someone wants to commit suicide it's none of your business.

Your control freak tendencies are getting out of hand.

Who the fuck are you to tell a person he has to live even if he doesn't want to?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Iowa open-carry nut gunned down mall worker who filed sexual harassment complaints against him*
An Iowa mall cop, with a Facebook account loaded with open-carry and right-wing memes and photos of multiple weapons, is under arrest for shooting and killing a fellow mall worker because she filed sexual harassment complaints against him.


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Iowa open-carry nut gunned down mall worker who filed sexual harassment complaints against him*
> An Iowa mall cop, with a Facebook account loaded with open-carry and right-wing memes and photos of multiple weapons, is under arrest for shooting and killing a fellow mall worker because she filed sexual harassment complaints against him.



And?

He wouldn't have killed her with a knife or a bat or his fists or his car if he couldn't get his hands on a gun??


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> And?
> 
> He wouldn't have killed her with a knife or a bat or his fists or his car if he couldn't get his hands on a gun??


No apparently not...


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> He wouldn't have killed her with a knife or a bat or his fists or his car if he couldn't get his hands on a gun??
> 
> 
> 
> No apparently not...
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> He wouldn't have killed her with a knife or a bat or his fists or his car if he couldn't get his hands on a gun??
> 
> 
> 
> No apparently not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

*prove it ?  it happened that he used a gun * now wing nut you prove he would have used some other method


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home Findings from a National Study


Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6).* Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.*

*




*


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> He wouldn't have killed her with a knife or a bat or his fists or his car if he couldn't get his hands on a gun??
> 
> 
> 
> No apparently not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *prove it ?  it happened that he used a gun * now wing nut you prove he would have used some other method
Click to expand...


You assume wrongly that if a person bent on murder is unable to get a gun that he won't use another method.

FYI more murders are committed with fists and feet than with any type of rifle including so called assault rifles.

People have been murdering people ever since there have been people on the planet and you think banning guns will stop it?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> You assume wrongly that if a person bent on murder is unable to get a gun that he won't use another method.



You assume that same punk who went and blew away a young lady from behind by putting 3 bullets in her would have been able to kill her at the mall with his fists or a knife...*he was a gun punk...*


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home Findings from a National Study
> 
> 
> Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6).* Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *


Yes we have a firearm homicide rate of 3.5 per 100,000

IOW one has a .0035% chance of being murdered by a firearm.

And you're obsessing on this why?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home Findings from a National Study
> 
> 
> Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6).* Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have a firearm homicide rate of 305 per 100,000
> 
> IOW one has a .0035% chance of being murdered by a firearm.
> 
> And you're obsessing on this why?
Click to expand...

one event Sandy Hook...another gun nut eruption


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume wrongly that if a person bent on murder is unable to get a gun that he won't use another method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that same punk who went and blew away a young lady from behind by putting 3 bullets in her would have been able to kill her at the mall with his fists or a knife...*he was a gun punk...*
Click to expand...


Now you're just rationalizing your fear of guns.  You cannot say with any certainty that he would not have killed her by the thousands of other means at his disposal.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> You can't prove the suicide rate will drop.
> 
> If people don't have a gun they will just use another method.
> 
> Anyway if someone wants to commit suicide it's none of your business.
> 
> Your control freak tendencies are getting out of hand.
> 
> Who the fuck are you to tell a person he has to live even if he doesn't want to?



A concerned human being. 

Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home Findings from a National Study
> 
> 
> Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6).* Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have a firearm homicide rate of 305 per 100,000
> 
> IOW one has a .0035% chance of being murdered by a firearm.
> 
> And you're obsessing on this why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one event Sandy Hook...another gun nut eruption
Click to expand...




TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home Findings from a National Study
> 
> 
> Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6).* Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have a firearm homicide rate of 305 per 100,000
> 
> IOW one has a .0035% chance of being murdered by a firearm.
> 
> And you're obsessing on this why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one event Sandy Hook...another gun nut eruption
Click to expand...


A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> Now you're just rationalizing your fear of guns.  You cannot say with any certainty that he would not have killed her by the thousands of other means at his disposal.


Look a brave person who will fight with fist or knife is much braver than a gun punk ....you are speculating that the same yellow bellied coward who guns down a woman from behind would have the testicles to use another method....


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove the suicide rate will drop.
> 
> If people don't have a gun they will just use another method.
> 
> Anyway if someone wants to commit suicide it's none of your business.
> 
> Your control freak tendencies are getting out of hand.
> 
> Who the fuck are you to tell a person he has to live even if he doesn't want to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A concerned human being.
> 
> Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Click to expand...


Says you.

What gives you the authority to tell someone they have to live in what they feel are intolerable conditions whether they be temporary or not?

If a person does not have complete ownership of self what does he have?


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.



A mentally ill retard who was able to get a military grade weapon and had access to hundreds of rounds of ammunition.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.



Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just rationalizing your fear of guns.  You cannot say with any certainty that he would not have killed her by the thousands of other means at his disposal.
> 
> 
> 
> Look a brave person who will fight with fist or knife is much braver than a gun punk ....you are speculating that the same yellow bellied coward who guns down a woman from behind would have the testicles to use another method....
Click to expand...


Absolutely.

It doesn't take much bravery to run a person down with a car or cave in their skull from behind with a lead pipe does it?


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard who was able to get a military grade weapon and had access to hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  The retards mother obtained the weapons and ammo not the retard himself


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> If a person does not have complete ownership of self what does he have?


In the case of women you want the Government to tell women what to do with their bodies....you make laws to take women;s autonomy from them so a POS like Mike Huckabee can "control their libidos"


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Says you.
> 
> What gives you the authority to tell someone they have to live in what they feel are intolerable conditions whether they be temporary or not?
> 
> If a person does not have complete ownership of self what does he have?



Guy, go take your Libertarian Crazy over to someone who gives a fuck.  

We lock suicidal people up all the time.  We don't let doctors kill their patients no matter how depressed they are.  

That's what a humane society does.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just rationalizing your fear of guns.  You cannot say with any certainty that he would not have killed her by the thousands of other means at his disposal.
> 
> 
> 
> Look a brave person who will fight with fist or knife is much braver than a gun punk ....you are speculating that the same yellow bellied coward who guns down a woman from behind would have the testicles to use another method....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> It doesn't take much bravery to run a person down with a car or cave in their skull from behind with a lead pipe does it?
Click to expand...

it takes more balls than shooting them...*gun punks are not known for courage...*


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Wrong. The retards mother obtained the weapons and ammo not the retard himself



You convinced me.  Let's ban EVERYONE from buying guns.  

Oh wait. That's not what you meant, is it?


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....
Click to expand...

 So how does banning guns from the vast majority of people who own guns and will never even point one at another person never mind shoot anyone stop that


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Skull Pilot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how does banning guns from the vast majority of people who own guns and will never even point one at another person never mind shoot anyone stop that
Click to expand...

I do not call for "banning guns"  I call for more effective comprehensive regulation of  gun ownership


----------



## Skull Pilot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how does banning guns from the vast majority of people who own guns and will never even point one at another person never mind shoot anyone stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not call for "banning guns"  I call for more effective comprehensive regulation of  gun ownership
Click to expand...

Which means what?

I already had to take a class qualify at a gun range have a CORY check and put my fingerprints on file with the state police to get me carry permit.
How many fucking more hoops should I have to jump through in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?

Maybe we should regulate free speech as much as you want to regulate guns.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> How many fucking more hoops should I have to jump through in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?



No one is stopping you from joining a Well-Regulated Militia.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking more hoops should I have to jump through in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is stopping you from joining a Well-Regulated Militia.
Click to expand...


The militia is secondary to the keep and bear arms part


----------



## Skull Pilot

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking more hoops should I have to jump through in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is stopping you from joining a Well-Regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is secondary to the keep and bear arms part
Click to expand...


And I consider myself a militia of one


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking more hoops should I have to jump through in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is stopping you from joining a Well-Regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is secondary to the keep and bear arms part
Click to expand...


Then why is it listed first?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> Ask David Koresh how much sympathy Gun Nuts who shoot federal agents get...
> 
> Oh, that's right, you can't.
> 
> Point is, you outlaw guns, the suicide rate WILL drop.  Just like when the UK got rid of coal gas in the ovens, the suicide rate dropped in the UK..



YOU are an idiot and no one believes your fecal jihad against gun owners is based on anything other than your leftwing politics


----------



## turtledude

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Iowa open-carry nut gunned down mall worker who filed sexual harassment complaints against him*
> An Iowa mall cop, with a Facebook account loaded with open-carry and right-wing memes and photos of multiple weapons, is under arrest for shooting and killing a fellow mall worker because she filed sexual harassment complaints against him.


see what happens when a victim is not armed


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how does banning guns from the vast majority of people who own guns and will never even point one at another person never mind shoot anyone stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not call for "banning guns"  I call for more effective comprehensive regulation of  gun ownership
Click to expand...


Examples?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking more hoops should I have to jump through in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is stopping you from joining a Well-Regulated Militia.
Click to expand...


It has been explained to you multiple times now how wrong your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is.  Obviously it would never be about government control since the Bill of Rights outlines the rights of the PEOPLE and not government.  A well regulated militia back then meant that your gun was cleaned and that every able-bodied man (and perhaps women) be ready to fight with their weapon at a moment's notice.  It only takes a bit of common sense, you know?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

turtledude said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Iowa open-carry nut gunned down mall worker who filed sexual harassment complaints against him*
> An Iowa mall cop, with a Facebook account loaded with open-carry and right-wing memes and photos of multiple weapons, is under arrest for shooting and killing a fellow mall worker because she filed sexual harassment complaints against him.
> 
> 
> 
> see what happens when a victim is not armed
Click to expand...

*No that is what happens when a punk gun owner shoots a woman in the back....*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ChrisL said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how does banning guns from the vast majority of people who own guns and will never even point one at another person never mind shoot anyone stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not call for "banning guns"  I call for more effective comprehensive regulation of  gun ownership
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples?
Click to expand...

do not let crazy people own firearms....


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how does banning guns from the vast majority of people who own guns and will never even point one at another person never mind shoot anyone stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not call for "banning guns"  I call for more effective comprehensive regulation of  gun ownership
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do not let crazy people own firearms....
Click to expand...


How do you define "crazy people" and how do you suggest we go about doing this?


----------



## WinterBorn

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mentally ill retard was responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.............a mentally ill retard with an arsenal of guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how does banning guns from the vast majority of people who own guns and will never even point one at another person never mind shoot anyone stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not call for "banning guns"  I call for more effective comprehensive regulation of  gun ownership
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do not let crazy people own firearms....
Click to expand...


If the mental health professionals report them to the database, they wouldn't be able to buy them from gun dealers.  You know, the guys JoeB wants to send to prison??


----------



## turtledude

[QUOTE="TyroneSlothrop, post: 11608122, member: 45552"
*No that is what happens when a punk gun owner shoots a woman in the back....*[/QUOTE]

is there a point to your rant?  are you trying to smear all gun owners? or are you a Graboid who thinks if guns are banned murder will go away?


----------



## turtledude

TyroneSlothrop said:


> [
> do not let crazy people own firearms....



or post on message boards.  its already against the law for those found mentally incompetent through due process to possess a gun


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

turtledude said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> do not let crazy people own firearms....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or post on message boards.  its already against the law for those found mentally incompetent through due process to possess a gun
Click to expand...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## turtledude

TyroneSlothrop said:


> [
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



if you need a nap you should get one and leave this conversation for the adults who actually understand the issue


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> YOU are an idiot and no one believes your fecal jihad against gun owners is based on anything other than your leftwing politics



duly noted that you can't argue the point made. 



turtledude said:


> see what happens when a victim is not armed



So exactly how was having a gun to keep her from being shot in the back? Somehow, I don't think everyone being armed is exactly a solution. So at what point was it okay for her to shoot the guy?  Considering he had training and she didn't, it still would have been one-sided. 



ChrisL said:


> It has been explained to you multiple times now how wrong your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is. Obviously it would never be about government control since the Bill of Rights outlines the rights of the PEOPLE and not government. A well regulated militia back then meant that your gun was cleaned and that every able-bodied man (and perhaps women) be ready to fight with their weapon at a moment's notice. It only takes a bit of common sense, you know?



5 Justices subscribe to my opinion, and that's all I need, snookums. 

Here's the thing.  We shouldn't be basing our laws on what some fucked up slave owners thought 250 years ago.  Their opinions are pointless in the here and now. 

We don't NEED a "Militia".  Today we have professional, highly trained Armies and Police Forces.  We don't need to rely on Cleetus to show up with his squirrel gun, and usually Cleetus and his squirrel gun are the problem. 

Other industrialized nations have figured this out.  They have nowhere near our level of Crime and Mayhem. 




turtledude said:


> is there a point to your rant? are you trying to smear all gun owners? or are you a Graboid who thinks if guns are banned murder will go away?



Go Away? No.  Be seriously reduced?  Um. Yeah.  Every other industrial nation has done that and proven that.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> Go Away? No.  Be seriously reduced?  Um. Yeah.  Every other industrial nation has done that and proven that.




You're an idiot.  and your faux crocodile tears about crime are facade


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> You're an idiot. and your faux crocodile tears about crime are facade



Your inability to answer the point is duly noted.  

So what are we doing "right' that the Japanese, Germans, british, Canadians, Italians and French are all getting wrong?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. and your faux crocodile tears about crime are facade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to answer the point is duly noted.
> 
> So what are we doing "right' that the Japanese, Germans, british, Canadians, Italians and French are all getting wrong?
Click to expand...


we have a constitution where the supreme sovereign is the people.  you are an idiot.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking more hoops should I have to jump through in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is stopping you from joining a Well-Regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is secondary to the keep and bear arms part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why is it listed first?
Click to expand...


I've posted explanations of thast before maybe you should have read them


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> we have a constitution where the supreme sovereign is the people. you are an idiot.



So if a majority of the people decided they wanted gun registration or licencing or waiting periods or real background checks, you'd be totally down with that? 

Because the majority supports those things.  

If the majority in a certain jurisdiction wanted to ban gun ownership altogether, you'd be all power to the people?  

Probably not.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> I've posted explanations of thast before maybe you should have read them



Yes, yes, you have posted all kinds of explanations about why the Founding Slave Rapists really didn't mean what they actually wrote and really intended for Joker Holmes to have a Machine Gun. 

Because if Comic Book Clowns can't have Machine Guns, are any of us truly free?


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. and your faux crocodile tears about crime are facade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to answer the point is duly noted.
> 
> So what are we doing "right' that the Japanese, Germans, british, Canadians, Italians and French are all getting wrong?
Click to expand...


Hey move to Japan.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

And I'll repeat a .0035% chance of being murdered with a gun is nothing to get your panties in a twist over


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted explanations of thast before maybe you should have read them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, you have posted all kinds of explanations about why the Founding Slave Rapists really didn't mean what they actually wrote and really intended for Joker Holmes to have a Machine Gun.
> 
> Because if Comic Book Clowns can't have Machine Guns, are any of us truly free?
Click to expand...

He didn't have a machine gun.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Hey move to Japan. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> And I'll repeat a .0035% chance of being murdered with a gun is nothing to get your panties in a twist over



Depends if that .0035% is someone you know. 

Someone died of a gunshot wound 50 feet from where I am sitting now, a gun that should have been taken away from him.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey move to Japan. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> And I'll repeat a .0035% chance of being murdered with a gun is nothing to get your panties in a twist over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends if that .0035% is someone you know.
> 
> Someone died of a gunshot wound 50 feet from where I am sitting now, a gun that should have been taken away from him.
Click to expand...


I bet a lot of people have died from one cause or another in your vicinity.

And if he committed suicide then that was his choice not yours


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> I bet a lot of people have died from one cause or another in your vicinity.
> 
> And if he committed suicide then that was his choice not yours



True enough. 

His was preventable.  If the cops had taken his gun during his dry run where he shot a bullet out into the common area, he might not have killed himself later.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet a lot of people have died from one cause or another in your vicinity.
> 
> And if he committed suicide then that was his choice not yours
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True enough.
> 
> His was preventable.  If the cops had taken his gun during his dry run where he shot a bullet out into the common area, he might not have killed himself later.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that doesn't trump my rights.  The whole is more important than the part.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a constitution where the supreme sovereign is the people. you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a majority of the people decided they wanted gun registration or licencing or waiting periods or real background checks, you'd be totally down with that?
> 
> Because the majority supports those things.
> 
> If the majority in a certain jurisdiction wanted to ban gun ownership altogether, you'd be all power to the people?
> 
> Probably not.
Click to expand...


the temporary whims of the sheeple are controlled and restricted by the Constitution


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet a lot of people have died from one cause or another in your vicinity.
> 
> And if he committed suicide then that was his choice not yours
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True enough.
> 
> His was preventable.  If the cops had taken his gun during his dry run where he shot a bullet out into the common area, he might not have killed himself later.
Click to expand...


It's no one's fault so stop trying to blame the cops, the gun, the gun seller, the gun maker and everyone else under the sun.

It was his right to end his life PERIOD


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. and your faux crocodile tears about crime are facade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to answer the point is duly noted.
> 
> So what are we doing "right' that the Japanese, Germans, british, Canadians, Italians and French are all getting wrong?
Click to expand...



What they have in common...they all experienced Fuedalism....they have a respect for central authority, with a monopoly on weapons,  that Americans do not have......they also experienced both World Wars....which helped reinforce a national pacifism that is seen today...

Europe has extreme gun laws....but their criminals still get guns when they want and need them...all the time....easily....

Japan keeps control over their people with police powers we would never tolerate, and their people put up with it because they were on of the last countries to leave feudalism and the centralization of authority.....

And Keep in mind.....Europe gave us socialism and mass graves...filled with people who had no weapons to stop it....so before you go all mushy on how wonderful Europe is, remember......millions of them were butchered by their own government in a time the world was supposed to be civilized and sophisticated.....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> 
> What they have in common...they all experienced Fuedalism....they have a respect for central authority, with a monopoly on weapons,  that Americans do not have......they also experienced both World Wars....which helped reinforce a national pacifism that is seen today...
> 
> Europe has extreme gun laws....but their criminals still get guns when they want and need them...all the time....easily....
> 
> Japan keeps control over their people with police powers we would never tolerate, and their people put up with it because they were on of the last countries to leave feudalism and the centralization of authority.....
> 
> And Keep in mind.....Europe gave us socialism and mass graves...filled with people who had no weapons to stop it....so before you go all mushy on how wonderful Europe is, remember......millions of them were butchered by their own government in a time the world was supposed to be civilized and sophisticated.....



Yeah. Americans weren't repsonsible for  "mass graves" Except for the Native Americans. And the Slaves. And Wars like Iraq and Vietnam and the Philippine War where we gleefully massacred the shit out of brown people who happened to be standing somewhere a rich person wanted. 

But no, the thing is, all those other countries realized that you have LESS mayhem if you don't let every schlub who wants a gun have one.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> the temporary whims of the sheeple are controlled and restricted by the Constitution



Again- circular logic of a gun nut.  

They don't want the people deciding gun laws because the constitution. 

They don't want the courts deciding what the constitution says because the people.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Sorry, but that doesn't trump my rights. The whole is more important than the part.



No, it really isn't.  I think if you let 100 people read your fucked up, crazy rantings here, 99 of them wouldn't let you have a gun.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

So. Just why is it that the US cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest violent crime rates?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> What they have in common...they all experienced Fuedalism....they have a respect for central authority, with a monopoly on weapons,  that Americans do not have......they also experienced both World Wars....which helped reinforce a national pacifism that is seen today...
> 
> Europe has extreme gun laws....but their criminals still get guns when they want and need them...all the time....easily....
> 
> Japan keeps control over their people with police powers we would never tolerate, and their people put up with it because they were on of the last countries to leave feudalism and the centralization of authority.....
> 
> And Keep in mind.....Europe gave us socialism and mass graves...filled with people who had no weapons to stop it....so before you go all mushy on how wonderful Europe is, remember......millions of them were butchered by their own government in a time the world was supposed to be civilized and sophisticated.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Americans weren't repsonsible for  "mass graves" Except for the Native Americans. And the Slaves. And Wars like Iraq and Vietnam and the Philippine War where we gleefully massacred the shit out of brown people who happened to be standing somewhere a rich person wanted.
> 
> But no, the thing is, all those other countries realized that you have LESS mayhem if you don't let every schlub who wants a gun have one.
Click to expand...



Yes...let's dismiss the deliberate murder of close to 100 million people moron.......you point out wars...the socialists murdered people...100 million of them......because they were simply class enemies....you really need help...


----------



## 2aguy

slaves....you mean the practice that was world wide...that we as a country ended after it was here when the Europeans arrived and when the Europeans and Africans brought the slaves here.........and again that we ended as a country......moron...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> What they have in common...they all experienced Fuedalism....they have a respect for central authority, with a monopoly on weapons,  that Americans do not have......they also experienced both World Wars....which helped reinforce a national pacifism that is seen today...
> 
> Europe has extreme gun laws....but their criminals still get guns when they want and need them...all the time....easily....
> 
> Japan keeps control over their people with police powers we would never tolerate, and their people put up with it because they were on of the last countries to leave feudalism and the centralization of authority.....
> 
> And Keep in mind.....Europe gave us socialism and mass graves...filled with people who had no weapons to stop it....so before you go all mushy on how wonderful Europe is, remember......millions of them were butchered by their own government in a time the world was supposed to be civilized and sophisticated.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Americans weren't repsonsible for  "mass graves" Except for the Native Americans. And the Slaves. And Wars like Iraq and Vietnam and the Philippine War where we gleefully massacred the shit out of brown people who happened to be standing somewhere a rich person wanted.
> 
> But no, the thing is, all those other countries realized that you have LESS mayhem if you don't let every schlub who wants a gun have one.
Click to expand...


Less mayhem....yes...when defenseless people are quietly marched to death camps you have a lot less mayhem....right?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> the temporary whims of the sheeple are controlled and restricted by the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- circular logic of a gun nut.
> 
> They don't want the people deciding gun laws because the constitution.
> 
> They don't want the courts deciding what the constitution says because the people.
Click to expand...



In a perfect world, only those of us who are grandmaster level shooters would be able to decide gun laws.  Garment soiling gun haters like you would have no say whatsoever


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that doesn't trump my rights. The whole is more important than the part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really isn't.  I think if you let 100 people read your fucked up, crazy rantings here, 99 of them wouldn't let you have a gun.
Click to expand...



with turds like you in this world, single ladies like Chris need to be well armed


----------



## JoeB131

9thIDdoc said:


> So. Just why is it that the US cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest violent crime rates?



The same reason cities with loose gun laws have high violent crime rates.  That's where lots of people live.   Duuuuuh.  



2aguy said:


> Yes...let's dismiss the deliberate murder of close to 100 million people moron.......you point out wars...the socialists murdered people...100 million of them......because they were simply class enemies....you really need help...



Well, I dismiss it because it isn't even an accurate number. Even if you put all the people who died under Stalin and Hilter together, you don't get ANYWHERE NEAR 100 million.  and that's being generous by throwing in WWII fatalities AND actually considering Hitler a "Socialist", because Frankly, the Krupps and the Other German Capitalists didn't get the message.  They had a good old time until Germany lost the war. 

Of course, the British empire genocided the shit out of Native Australians, Belgian Capitalists in the Congo genocided the shit out the native people there.  We genocided the shit out the Native Americans, and did quite a number on the Philippines trying to get them to love Capitalism.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> slaves....you mean the practice that was world wide...that we as a country ended after it was here when the Europeans arrived and when the Europeans and Africans brought the slaves here.........and again that we ended as a country......moron...



The Europeans ended slavery long before we did.   and we had to have a civil war to "end:" it because a lot of people in the South decided, "We's gonna take our guns and fight the Yankees, Cleetus!"  



2aguy said:


> Less mayhem....yes...when defenseless people are quietly marched to death camps you have a lot less mayhem....right?



Uh, most of the people who died in German Death Camps had guns, but the Germans had tanks and bombers, dumbass.   A lot of the people in those countries WITH guns were happy to turn on their neighbors and help the Germans send their neighbors there. 

It's why all the "War Criminals" they caught in the 1970's and 80's weren't Germans.  They were guys who signed up for that nifty new job at the Death Camp. 

Of course, after the war, most of these countries decided it was kind of stupid to let average citizens have guns.   but before the war, that wasn't much of an issue.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. Just why is it that the US cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest violent crime rates?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason cities with loose gun laws have high violent crime rates.  That's where lots of people live.   Duuuuuh.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...let's dismiss the deliberate murder of close to 100 million people moron.......you point out wars...the socialists murdered people...100 million of them......because they were simply class enemies....you really need help...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I dismiss it because it isn't even an accurate number. Even if you put all the people who died under Stalin and Hilter together, you don't get ANYWHERE NEAR 100 million.  and that's being generous by throwing in WWII fatalities AND actually considering Hitler a "Socialist", because Frankly, the Krupps and the Other German Capitalists didn't get the message.  They had a good old time until Germany lost the war.
> 
> Of course, the British empire genocided the shit out of Native Australians, Belgian Capitalists in the Congo genocided the shit out the native people there.  We genocided the shit out the Native Americans, and did quite a number on the Philippines trying to get them to love Capitalism.
Click to expand...



You forgot mao moron....and pol pot.....

The Indians died of disease...genocide is an intentional act.........


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> You forgot mao moron....and pol pot.....
> 
> The Indians died of disease...genocide is an intentional act....



Mao and Pol Pot weren't in "Europe".  You were whining about "European" socialists, not Asian ones.

Should point out that China has a pretty bloody history in General.  The Taiping Rebellion claimed 20 million lives in the 19th century and not a Communist in sight.

As for Cambodia, you leave out that we killed probably 3 million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.  How is it you only see the other guy's bad acts? 



2aguy said:


> The Indians died of disease...genocide is an intentional act....



You mean like when WHite People "intentionally" gave the Indians blankets infected with smallpox? 

The Trail of Tears looked pretty "intentional" to me. 

Maybe you can reclassify Wounded Knee as "they died of lead poisoning".


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> slaves....you mean the practice that was world wide...that we as a country ended after it was here when the Europeans arrived and when the Europeans and Africans brought the slaves here.........and again that we ended as a country......moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Europeans ended slavery long before we did.   and we had to have a civil war to "end:" it because a lot of people in the South decided, "We's gonna take our guns and fight the Yankees, Cleetus!"
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less mayhem....yes...when defenseless people are quietly marched to death camps you have a lot less mayhem....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, most of the people who died in German Death Camps had guns, but the Germans had tanks and bombers, dumbass.   A lot of the people in those countries WITH guns were happy to turn on their neighbors and help the Germans send their neighbors there.
> 
> It's why all the "War Criminals" they caught in the 1970's and 80's weren't Germans.  They were guys who signed up for that nifty new job at the Death Camp.
> 
> Of course, after the war, most of these countries decided it was kind of stupid to let average citizens have guns.   but before the war, that wasn't much of an issue.
Click to expand...



The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....

And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot mao moron....and pol pot.....
> 
> The Indians died of disease...genocide is an intentional act....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mao and Pol Pot weren't in "Europe".  You were whining about "European" socialists, not Asian ones.
> 
> Should point out that China has a pretty bloody history in General.  The Taiping Rebellion claimed 20 million lives in the 19th century and not a Communist in sight.
> 
> As for Cambodia, you leave out that we killed probably 3 million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.  How is it you only see the other guy's bad acts?
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Indians died of disease...genocide is an intentional act....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like when WHite People "intentionally" gave the Indians blankets infected with smallpox?
> 
> The Trail of Tears looked pretty "intentional" to me.
> 
> Maybe you can reclassify Wounded Knee as "they died of lead poisoning".
Click to expand...


Wounded Knee was the gov't.   You want them disarmed too?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?



Guy, read up on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  They had weapons.  Didn't stop the germans even a little bit.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that doesn't trump my rights. The whole is more important than the part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really isn't.  I think if you let 100 people read your fucked up, crazy rantings here, 99 of them wouldn't let you have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> with turds like you in this world, single ladies like Chris need to be well armed
Click to expand...


I've still got my knife, and I would stab him right in the eye ball!


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that doesn't trump my rights. The whole is more important than the part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really isn't.  I think if you let 100 people read your fucked up, crazy rantings here, 99 of them wouldn't let you have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> with turds like you in this world, single ladies like Chris need to be well armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've still got my knife, and I would stab him right in the eye ball!
Click to expand...


If we are talking about JoeyB, I doubt you would need your knife.   A stern look would send him running.  Being a female, I am pretty sure you have mastered "The Look".


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that doesn't trump my rights. The whole is more important than the part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really isn't.  I think if you let 100 people read your fucked up, crazy rantings here, 99 of them wouldn't let you have a gun.
Click to expand...


Well, for one thing, Mr. JoeB, if this was a REAL debate, you would have been disqualified for resorting to personal attacks, typical for the losing side in the argument.  Also, I challenge you to find one post of mine that is "crazy rantings."  Just one.  Will you accept my challenge?  Probably not.  

OTOH, I can find MANY such posts from you, Mr. JoeB, so perhaps you should rethink this silly statement of yours.  You are the one who is threatening innocent people with harm in this thread.  I have done no such thing.


----------



## Muhammed

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> slaves....you mean the practice that was world wide...that we as a country ended after it was here when the Europeans arrived and when the Europeans and Africans brought the slaves here.........and again that we ended as a country......moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Europeans ended slavery long before we did.   and we had to have a civil war to "end:" it because a lot of people in the South decided, "We's gonna take our guns and fight the Yankees, Cleetus!"
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less mayhem....yes...when defenseless people are quietly marched to death camps you have a lot less mayhem....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Uh, most of the people who died in German Death Camps had guns, but the Germans had tanks and bombers, dumbass.   A lot of the people in those countries WITH guns were happy to turn on their neighbors and help the Germans send their neighbors there.
> 
> It's why all the "War Criminals" they caught in the 1970's and 80's weren't Germans.  They were guys who signed up for that nifty new job at the Death Camp.
> 
> Of course, after the war, most of these countries decided it was kind of stupid to let average citizens have guns.   but before the war, that wasn't much of an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
Click to expand...

You are painting with a very broad brush.

Not all Democrats want to ban guns.

I have a brother and a sister who are Democrats. Both of them own guns and have concealed weapon permits. My sister carries a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun in her purse practically everywhere she goes.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read up on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  They had weapons.  Didn't stop the germans even a little bit.
Click to expand...

Read up on it yourself, why did they rise up when they did and why did it ultimately fail..........?   Can you answer both questions without Googling it? 
The fact they had weapons has no bearing, or correlation to the statement 2aguy made, your association is faulty.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read up on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  They had weapons.  Didn't stop the germans even a little bit.
Click to expand...



They didn't have enough weapons and they it took the Germans far longer than it would have if they were unarmed......you know joe...we have seen what happens to innocent people when the government has guns and the people don't....100 million mass graves.......we would like to try it the other way next time.......


----------



## 2aguy

Muhammed said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> slaves....you mean the practice that was world wide...that we as a country ended after it was here when the Europeans arrived and when the Europeans and Africans brought the slaves here.........and again that we ended as a country......moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Europeans ended slavery long before we did.   and we had to have a civil war to "end:" it because a lot of people in the South decided, "We's gonna take our guns and fight the Yankees, Cleetus!"
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less mayhem....yes...when defenseless people are quietly marched to death camps you have a lot less mayhem....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Uh, most of the people who died in German Death Camps had guns, but the Germans had tanks and bombers, dumbass.   A lot of the people in those countries WITH guns were happy to turn on their neighbors and help the Germans send their neighbors there.
> 
> It's why all the "War Criminals" they caught in the 1970's and 80's weren't Germans.  They were guys who signed up for that nifty new job at the Death Camp.
> 
> Of course, after the war, most of these countries decided it was kind of stupid to let average citizens have guns.   but before the war, that wasn't much of an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are painting with a very broad brush.
> 
> Not all Democrats want to ban guns.
> 
> I have a brother and a sister who are Democrats. Both of them own guns and have concealed weapon permits. My sister carries a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun in her purse practically everywhere she goes.
Click to expand...



The democrats who hold political office want to ban guns....and I bet your brother and sister voted to put them in office...right?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read up on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  They had weapons.  Didn't stop the germans even a little bit.
Click to expand...



Yeah...here are some details....

they didn't have enough guns....

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia






Hanna Krall, who interviewed the only surviving uprising commander, Marek Edelman (from the left-wing Jewish Combat Organization, Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa, ŻOB), stated that the ŻOB had 220 fighters and each was armed with a handgun, grenades, and Molotov cocktails.

*His organization had three rifles in each area, as well as two land mines and one submachine gun in the whole Ghetto.*[17][18][19][20] *The insurgents had little ammunition;* 

more weapons were supplied throughout the uprising, and some were captured from the Germans. Some weapons were handmade by the resistance; sometimes such weapons worked, other times they jammed repeatedly.

This is why we fight for the 2nd amendment.........we remember history.....


----------



## Muhammed

2aguy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> slaves....you mean the practice that was world wide...that we as a country ended after it was here when the Europeans arrived and when the Europeans and Africans brought the slaves here.........and again that we ended as a country......moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Europeans ended slavery long before we did.   and we had to have a civil war to "end:" it because a lot of people in the South decided, "We's gonna take our guns and fight the Yankees, Cleetus!"
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less mayhem....yes...when defenseless people are quietly marched to death camps you have a lot less mayhem....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Uh, most of the people who died in German Death Camps had guns, but the Germans had tanks and bombers, dumbass.   A lot of the people in those countries WITH guns were happy to turn on their neighbors and help the Germans send their neighbors there.
> 
> It's why all the "War Criminals" they caught in the 1970's and 80's weren't Germans.  They were guys who signed up for that nifty new job at the Death Camp.
> 
> Of course, after the war, most of these countries decided it was kind of stupid to let average citizens have guns.   but before the war, that wasn't much of an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are painting with a very broad brush.
> 
> Not all Democrats want to ban guns.
> 
> I have a brother and a sister who are Democrats. Both of them own guns and have concealed weapon permits. My sister carries a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun in her purse practically everywhere she goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats who hold political office want to ban guns....and I bet your brother and sister voted to put them in office...right?
Click to expand...

I've no doubt that they vote Democrat, however, as I previously pointed out, not all Democrats want to ban guns. 

I think the Democrats that do want to ban guns are just a hell of a lot more vocal regarding the issue than the ones who are against banning guns.


----------



## Ringel05

2aguy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> slaves....you mean the practice that was world wide...that we as a country ended after it was here when the Europeans arrived and when the Europeans and Africans brought the slaves here.........and again that we ended as a country......moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Europeans ended slavery long before we did.   and we had to have a civil war to "end:" it because a lot of people in the South decided, "We's gonna take our guns and fight the Yankees, Cleetus!"
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less mayhem....yes...when defenseless people are quietly marched to death camps you have a lot less mayhem....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Uh, most of the people who died in German Death Camps had guns, but the Germans had tanks and bombers, dumbass.   A lot of the people in those countries WITH guns were happy to turn on their neighbors and help the Germans send their neighbors there.
> 
> It's why all the "War Criminals" they caught in the 1970's and 80's weren't Germans.  They were guys who signed up for that nifty new job at the Death Camp.
> 
> Of course, after the war, most of these countries decided it was kind of stupid to let average citizens have guns.   but before the war, that wasn't much of an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are painting with a very broad brush.
> 
> Not all Democrats want to ban guns.
> 
> I have a brother and a sister who are Democrats. Both of them own guns and have concealed weapon permits. My sister carries a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun in her purse practically everywhere she goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats who hold political office want to ban guns....and I bet your brother and sister voted to put them in office...right?
Click to expand...

Explain New Mexico then.......


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats in the South decided they liked owning people....and still do...but they branched out and want to own all people, not just blacks......and no, the people in the death camps did not have guns.....the police and soldiers had guns...exactly what morons like you want...and it turned out badly when the government decided to kill people....
> 
> And of course they thought it was stupid to let citizens have guns.......they know that armed citizens can actually fight back.....why would they want that.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read up on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  They had weapons.  Didn't stop the germans even a little bit.
Click to expand...

IF  all the Jews in Nazi areas had resisted at the same level the Polish Ghetto did, the nazis would have been beaten in half the time.  If one out of every ten jews who was gassed had killed one Nazi before being murdered, that would have been 600K less Nazis the US, Brits and Russians would have had to kill.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Well, for one thing, Mr. JoeB, if this was a REAL debate, you would have been disqualified for resorting to personal attacks, typical for the losing side in the argument. Also, I challenge you to find one post of mine that is "crazy rantings." Just one. Will you accept my challenge? Probably not.



Uh...no, crazy people rarely understand how crazy they sound.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Yeah...here are some details....
> 
> they didn't have enough guns....



Uh, no, htey had plenty.  

They just don't do a lot of good against TANKS.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> IF all the Jews in Nazi areas had resisted at the same level the Polish Ghetto did, the nazis would have been beaten in half the time. If one out of every ten jews who was gassed had killed one Nazi before being murdered, that would have been 600K less Nazis the US, Brits and Russians would have had to kill.



Uh, yeah, I htink your tactical understanding is laughable, dude.  

Fact is, there were all sorts of "partisan movement" in WWII.  And they didn't dislodge one Nazi. The allies gave them a shitload of weapons, and most of them didn't fight. 

Case in point, the "Free French".  There were more Vichy than Maquis.  All the way up until the end of the war.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, I htink your tactical understanding is laughable, dude.
> 
> Fact is, there were all sorts of "partisan movement" in WWII.  And they didn't dislodge one Nazi. The allies gave them a shitload of weapons, and most of them didn't fight.
> 
> Case in point, the "Free French".  There were more Vichy than Maquis.  All the way up until the end of the war.



Hey shit for brains:  the jews couldn't fight back because assholes who think like you disarmed them before the holocaust started


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> Hey shit for brains: the jews couldn't fight back because assholes who think like you disarmed them before the holocaust started



Uh, no, not really.  

You see, here's the thing.  Most GERMAN Jews survived WWII.  Most of the ones who got genocided were in countries that Germany DEFEATED on the battlefield.  IN fact, half the victims of the Holocaust came from Poland, which had an oppurtunity to resist Germany with guns. 

But the Germans brought tanks... and Stukas... 

Whooops.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey shit for brains: the jews couldn't fight back because assholes who think like you disarmed them before the holocaust started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, not really.
> 
> You see, here's the thing.  Most GERMAN Jews survived WWII.  Most of the ones who got genocided were in countries that Germany DEFEATED on the battlefield.  IN fact, half the victims of the Holocaust came from Poland, which had an oppurtunity to resist Germany with guns.
> 
> But the Germans brought tanks... and Stukas...
> 
> Whooops.
Click to expand...



MOST GERMAN JEWS SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST?  well that is because so many fled Germany before it happened because they saw what sort of nastiness the scum bag Nazis were planning for them.  

stupid claim from a moron


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> MOST GERMAN JEWS SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST? well that is because so many fled Germany before it happened because they saw what sort of nastiness the scum bag Nazis were planning for them.
> 
> stupid claim from a moron



Just putting the lie to the notion that the 'holocaust" was caused by "gun control", which is pretty stupid, given that the Nazis actually LOOSENED the gun laws.  It was easier to get a gun in Nazi Germany than any time in German history.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF all the Jews in Nazi areas had resisted at the same level the Polish Ghetto did, the nazis would have been beaten in half the time. If one out of every ten jews who was gassed had killed one Nazi before being murdered, that would have been 600K less Nazis the US, Brits and Russians would have had to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, I htink your tactical understanding is laughable, dude.
> 
> Fact is, there were all sorts of "partisan movement" in WWII.  And they didn't dislodge one Nazi. The allies gave them a shitload of weapons, and most of them didn't fight.
> 
> Case in point, the "Free French".  There were more Vichy than Maquis.  All the way up until the end of the war.
Click to expand...


Those partisan movements never had enough weapons moron........


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST GERMAN JEWS SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST? well that is because so many fled Germany before it happened because they saw what sort of nastiness the scum bag Nazis were planning for them.
> 
> stupid claim from a moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just putting the lie to the notion that the 'holocaust" was caused by "gun control", which is pretty stupid, given that the Nazis actually LOOSENED the gun laws.  It was easier to get a gun in Nazi Germany than any time in German history.
Click to expand...



Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST GERMAN JEWS SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST? well that is because so many fled Germany before it happened because they saw what sort of nastiness the scum bag Nazis were planning for them.
> 
> stupid claim from a moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just putting the lie to the notion that the 'holocaust" was caused by "gun control", which is pretty stupid, given that the Nazis actually LOOSENED the gun laws.  It was easier to get a gun in Nazi Germany than any time in German history.
Click to expand...


yeah if you were a party member dipshit,  Not so much if you were a Jew


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for one thing, Mr. JoeB, if this was a REAL debate, you would have been disqualified for resorting to personal attacks, typical for the losing side in the argument. Also, I challenge you to find one post of mine that is "crazy rantings." Just one. Will you accept my challenge? Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no, crazy people rarely understand how crazy they sound.
Click to expand...


^^^

Exhibit A.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......



But everyone in Germany was pretty much a Nazi, so it wasn't a problem.  

Germany was about as close to a gun nutter paradise as Europe ever got.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> yeah if you were a party member dipshit, Not so much if you were a Jew



It sucked to be a Jew in Nazi Germany in General. 

Having guns would not have made it suck any less.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But everyone in Germany was pretty much a Nazi, so it wasn't a problem.
> 
> Germany was about as close to a gun nutter paradise as Europe ever got.
Click to expand...


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> It sucked to be a Jew in Nazi Germany in General.
> 
> Having guns would not have made it suck any less.



so taking a few nazi bastards with you wasn't something you'd want to do?

figure not-you're a coward


----------



## 2aguy

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sucked to be a Jew in Nazi Germany in General.
> 
> Having guns would not have made it suck any less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so taking a few nazi bastards with you wasn't something you'd want to do?
> 
> figure not-you're a coward
Click to expand...



Since we know what happened to unarmed, innocent people when their government decided to murder them....and the other countries of Europe handed their citizens over to the nazis as well.......how about we try it the other way...and make sure we are armed instead...see how that turns out.....since 12 million dead added to the European murder totals puts their murder rate much higher than ours.......


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sucked to be a Jew in Nazi Germany in General.
> 
> Having guns would not have made it suck any less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so taking a few nazi bastards with you wasn't something you'd want to do?
> 
> figure not-you're a coward
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we know what happened to unarmed, innocent people when their government decided to murder them....and the other countries of Europe handed their citizens over to the nazis as well.......how about we try it the other way...and make sure we are armed instead...see how that turns out.....since 12 million dead added to the European murder totals puts their murder rate much higher than ours.......
Click to expand...


yeah that 12 million never gets included in the braying eurofags' whining about american death counts


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But everyone in Germany was pretty much a Nazi, so it wasn't a problem.
> 
> Germany was about as close to a gun nutter paradise as Europe ever got.
Click to expand...









Bullshit.  At its height the Nazi party numbered 5.5 to 6 million.  The total population of Germany was over 60 million.   Are you simply ignorant of history or lying again?


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah if you were a party member dipshit, Not so much if you were a Jew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sucked to be a Jew in Nazi Germany in General.
> 
> Having guns would not have made it suck any less.
Click to expand...





Tell that to the Jews who revolted and escaped from the Sobibor death camp.  My gosh but you're an ignorant twerp.

*Alexander Pechersky on the Revolt and Escape *

*From the Sobibor  Death Camp *


*Alexander Pechersky The Revolt and Escape From Sobibor Death Camp www.HolocaustResearchProject.org*


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> so taking a few nazi bastards with you wasn't something you'd want to do?
> 
> figure not-you're a coward



Yawn, guy, you gun nuts talk smack all day, but when Timothy McVeigh did his thing, you all headed to the tall grass.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Tell that to the Jews who revolted and escaped from the Sobibor death camp. My gosh but you're an ignorant twerp.



Yawn.   Fact was, guns didn't stop the Holocaust.  Guns didn't stop the Nazis, even though many Germans had them.  

The person who tells me "I needs my guns in case the government goes bad" is delusional.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Bullshit. At its height the Nazi party numbered 5.5 to 6 million. The total population of Germany was over 60 million. Are you simply ignorant of history or lying again?



And the rest of the Germans enthusastically supported them.  That was the point.  

Oh, non party members had no problem getting guns unless they weren't classified as Aryan. 

The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had _tougher_ gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Since we know what happened to unarmed, innocent people when their government decided to murder them....and the other countries of Europe handed their citizens over to the nazis as well.......how about we try it the other way...and make sure we are armed instead...see how that turns out.....since 12 million dead added to the European murder totals puts their murder rate much higher than ours.......



Guy, the problem wasn't that "the government" murdered them, it was that their NEIGHBORS murdered them. 

You see, when you have a myth that Group A killed your Imaginary Sky Man on a Stick, killing group A becomes acceptable.

The reality is, if you guys ever took up arms against the government, the government would totally take you out and most of your neighbors would be cheering them on because you were frightening their children.  Just ask Koresh or McVeigh.

You might need one of these, though.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> so taking a few nazi bastards with you wasn't something you'd want to do?
> 
> figure not-you're a coward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, you gun nuts talk smack all day, but when Timothy McVeigh did his thing, you all headed to the tall grass.
Click to expand...


I don't know any gun buff who headed to the tall grass.   Every single one of them wanted him caught, tried and executed.

You seem to like to tell everyone else what they think.  And yet you are the first to ignore the laws of the land.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> I don't know any gun buff who headed to the tall grass. Every single one of them wanted him caught, tried and executed.
> 
> You seem to like to tell everyone else what they think. And yet you are the first to ignore the laws of the land.



Really?  Hey, what I remember was that after Waco, Wayne LaPeirre called the ATF "Jack Booted Thugs" and screamed about how we needed guns to fight the government. 

After OKC, not so much.  The nuts all got really quiet and the Militia movement, which had over 858 groups in the 1990's.   By 2001, they had largely disappeared.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any gun buff who headed to the tall grass. Every single one of them wanted him caught, tried and executed.
> 
> You seem to like to tell everyone else what they think. And yet you are the first to ignore the laws of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Hey, what I remember was that after Waco, Wayne LaPeirre called the ATF "Jack Booted Thugs" and screamed about how we needed guns to fight the government.
> 
> After OKC, not so much.  The nuts all got really quiet and the Militia movement, which had over 858 groups in the 1990's.   By 2001, they had largely disappeared.
Click to expand...


The attack in Waco was a debacle.   They could have grabbed the guy they wanted without all the bloodshed.  He went into town several times a week.

YOu are claiming to know what every gun buff thinks and what they did?   Just more lies, huh?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The attack in Waco was a debacle. They could have grabbed the guy they wanted without all the bloodshed. He went into town several times a week.
> 
> YOu are claiming to know what every gun buff thinks and what they did? Just more lies, huh?



Guy, you gun nuts pretty much expose yourself.   And until 2008, I was on your side of the fence and got to hear a lot of the crazy-first hand.  

No, the only debacle in Waco is that they didn't come back the next day with tanks.  They shouldn't have waited 40 days for these whacks to work their way up to mass suicide.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Jews who revolted and escaped from the Sobibor death camp. My gosh but you're an ignorant twerp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.   Fact was, guns didn't stop the Holocaust.  Guns didn't stop the Nazis, even though many Germans had them.
> 
> The person who tells me "I needs my guns in case the government goes bad" is delusional.
Click to expand...



Fact is guns did stop the nazis and the death camps......the U.S. soldiers didn't use rainbows and pixie dust moron....


----------



## jillian

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any gun buff who headed to the tall grass. Every single one of them wanted him caught, tried and executed.
> 
> You seem to like to tell everyone else what they think. And yet you are the first to ignore the laws of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Hey, what I remember was that after Waco, Wayne LaPeirre called the ATF "Jack Booted Thugs" and screamed about how we needed guns to fight the government.
> 
> After OKC, not so much.  The nuts all got really quiet and the Militia movement, which had over 858 groups in the 1990's.   By 2001, they had largely disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The attack in Waco was a debacle.   They could have grabbed the guy they wanted without all the bloodshed.  He went into town several times a week.
> 
> YOu are claiming to know what every gun buff thinks and what they did?   Just more lies, huh?
Click to expand...


the loons in waco shouldn't have raised arms against their government. that seems to be what the righties don't get.

toons even defend koresh.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attack in Waco was a debacle. They could have grabbed the guy they wanted without all the bloodshed. He went into town several times a week.
> 
> YOu are claiming to know what every gun buff thinks and what they did? Just more lies, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you gun nuts pretty much expose yourself.   And until 2008, I was on your side of the fence and got to hear a lot of the crazy-first hand.
> 
> No, the only debacle in Waco is that they didn't come back the next day with tanks.  They shouldn't have waited 40 days for these whacks to work their way up to mass suicide.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  You weren't a part of any gun group except perhaps some lunatic fringe, where you fit in quite well.

When McVeigh was caught the gun buffs were adamant about him being executed.   

Oh, and why are you adding McVeigh in anyway?  Do you think a gun ban would have saved any lives in OK?


----------



## WinterBorn

jillian said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any gun buff who headed to the tall grass. Every single one of them wanted him caught, tried and executed.
> 
> You seem to like to tell everyone else what they think. And yet you are the first to ignore the laws of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Hey, what I remember was that after Waco, Wayne LaPeirre called the ATF "Jack Booted Thugs" and screamed about how we needed guns to fight the government.
> 
> After OKC, not so much.  The nuts all got really quiet and the Militia movement, which had over 858 groups in the 1990's.   By 2001, they had largely disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The attack in Waco was a debacle.   They could have grabbed the guy they wanted without all the bloodshed.  He went into town several times a week.
> 
> YOu are claiming to know what every gun buff thinks and what they did?   Just more lies, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the loons in waco shouldn't have raised arms against their government. that seems to be what the righties don't get.
> 
> toons even defend koresh.
Click to expand...


Link?   Anyone here defending Koresh?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Fact is guns did stop the nazis and the death camps......the U.S. soldiers didn't use rainbows and pixie dust moron....



Guns controled by a "Well-Regulated" Army.  

Not clowns showing up with their pistols.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Bullshit. You weren't a part of any gun group except perhaps some lunatic fringe, where you fit in quite well.
> 
> When McVeigh was caught the gun buffs were adamant about him being executed.



Yeah, after everyone realized that a "War on the Government" includes dragging dead kids out of rubble.  Helllllooooooo.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You weren't a part of any gun group except perhaps some lunatic fringe, where you fit in quite well.
> 
> When McVeigh was caught the gun buffs were adamant about him being executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after everyone realized that a "War on the Government" includes dragging dead kids out of rubble.  Helllllooooooo.
Click to expand...


Yet again you claim to know what people are thinking.   Just more bullshit.

I know a lot of gun buffs, shooters and hunters.  Not a single one said a single word in support of McVeigh.  

They were adamant about executing a criminal who murdered all those people.  Your claims to the contrary are nonsense.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You weren't a part of any gun group except perhaps some lunatic fringe, where you fit in quite well.
> 
> When McVeigh was caught the gun buffs were adamant about him being executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after everyone realized that a "War on the Government" includes dragging dead kids out of rubble.  Helllllooooooo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet again you claim to know what people are thinking.   Just more bullshit.
> 
> I know a lot of gun buffs, shooters and hunters.  Not a single one said a single word in support of McVeigh.
> 
> They were adamant about executing a criminal who murdered all those people.  Your claims to the contrary are nonsense.
Click to expand...


He's a gun ban nut.  What else could we expect?    His posts are completely off the wall whacked.  That's why the last post he made to me was so ironic.  We have Joe here being an advocate for locking up innocent people who have broken NO laws.  Forgive the Godwin's law reference, but he really seems to have much in common with the Nazis.


----------



## Ringel05

westwall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But everyone in Germany was pretty much a Nazi, so it wasn't a problem.
> 
> Germany was about as close to a gun nutter paradise as Europe ever got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  At its height the Nazi party numbered 5.5 to 6 million.  The total population of Germany was over 60 million.   Are you simply ignorant of history or lying again?
Click to expand...

The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me.......  Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German  and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.  
Joe, if you want a clue at least read *The Dark Valley*, _a Panorama of the 1930s_ by Piers Brendon for a great study of all the nations that eventually became embroiled in WWII.  Also read *They Thought They Were Free*, _the Germans 1933-45_ by Milton Mayer.  Neither one are *Read with Dick and Jane* books so ya might have to get someone to read them too you or get them in audio books........


----------



## Ringel05

Oh and Jo(ke), here's another one you should attempt to read:
The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton John Jay and James Madison


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. At its height the Nazi party numbered 5.5 to 6 million. The total population of Germany was over 60 million. Are you simply ignorant of history or lying again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the rest of the Germans enthusastically supported them.  That was the point.
> 
> Oh, non party members had no problem getting guns unless they weren't classified as Aryan.
> 
> The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com
> 
> Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
> 
> University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had _tougher_ gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
> 
> The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
Click to expand...








No, the rest of Germans endured them.  Go to Lich sometime.  There is a nice little cemetery in the Catholic cathedral there that houses German victims of the Gestapo.  Ordinary Germans who somehow pissed off the authorities.  As usual you ignore very real history.  The facts are if you were a member of the Nazi Party you did pretty well.  You had a good job, your wages were good, basically if you wanted to be able to do business in the Reich, you HAD to be a member.

But, membership had its costs too.  In addition to the good jobs there were duties involved with being a member.  One of those duties was making sure that no one got out of hand so the Police force in Germany was HUGE.  They had city police.  Highway police, mountain police, water protection police, postal protection police, railway police, fire protection police, customs police, tax collection police etc. etc. etc.  They also had the National Labor Service (which Bill Clinton wanted to bring to this country, he didn't even bother to change the name) which was a para military organization that taught people to obey the authorities and arranged its workers in a military system.  That way in addition to doing public works, they were also being trained as soldiers at the same time.

No, joeb, the population of Germany endured, they din' "support".

Though I have no doubt *you* would have risen high in the ranks of the Party.


----------



## westwall

Ringel05 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But everyone in Germany was pretty much a Nazi, so it wasn't a problem.
> 
> Germany was about as close to a gun nutter paradise as Europe ever got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  At its height the Nazi party numbered 5.5 to 6 million.  The total population of Germany was over 60 million.   Are you simply ignorant of history or lying again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me.......  Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German  and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> Joe, if you want a clue at least read *The Dark Valley*, _a Panorama of the 1930s_ by Piers Brendon for a great study of all the nations that eventually became embroiled in WWII.  Also read *They Thought They Were Free*, _the Germans 1933-45_ by Milton Mayer.  Neither one are *Read with Dick and Jane* books so ya might have to get someone to read them too you or get them in audio books........
Click to expand...







Another good one is *The Nazi Seizure of Power*.


----------



## Ringel05

westwall said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But everyone in Germany was pretty much a Nazi, so it wasn't a problem.
> 
> Germany was about as close to a gun nutter paradise as Europe ever got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  At its height the Nazi party numbered 5.5 to 6 million.  The total population of Germany was over 60 million.   Are you simply ignorant of history or lying again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me.......  Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German  and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> Joe, if you want a clue at least read *The Dark Valley*, _a Panorama of the 1930s_ by Piers Brendon for a great study of all the nations that eventually became embroiled in WWII.  Also read *They Thought They Were Free*, _the Germans 1933-45_ by Milton Mayer.  Neither one are *Read with Dick and Jane* books so ya might have to get someone to read them too you or get them in audio books........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good one is *The Nazi Seizure of Power*.
Click to expand...

Been cleaning out my WWII library and replacing it with pre and post Rev War volumes, now that I'm in El Paso will probably start adding Spanish colonial history.


----------



## 2aguy

Ringel05 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, the nazis banned guns for non nazis....what an idiot.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But everyone in Germany was pretty much a Nazi, so it wasn't a problem.
> 
> Germany was about as close to a gun nutter paradise as Europe ever got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  At its height the Nazi party numbered 5.5 to 6 million.  The total population of Germany was over 60 million.   Are you simply ignorant of history or lying again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me.......  Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German  and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> Joe, if you want a clue at least read *The Dark Valley*, _a Panorama of the 1930s_ by Piers Brendon for a great study of all the nations that eventually became embroiled in WWII.  Also read *They Thought They Were Free*, _the Germans 1933-45_ by Milton Mayer.  Neither one are *Read with Dick and Jane* books so ya might have to get someone to read them too you or get them in audio books........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good one is *The Nazi Seizure of Power*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been cleaning out my WWII library and replacing it with pre and post Rev War volumes, now that I'm in El Paso will probably start adding Spanish colonial history.
Click to expand...



I have heard this is a good one...and it bears on the topic.....

Gun Control in the Third Reich Disarming the Jews and Enemies of the State - Kindle edition by Stephen P. Halbrook. Politics Social Sciences Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.

You can find lectures by this gentleman on Youtube.......


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> He's a gun ban nut. What else could we expect?  His posts are completely off the wall whacked. That's why the last post he made to me was so ironic. We have Joe here being an advocate for locking up innocent people who have broken NO laws. Forgive the Godwin's law reference, but he really seems to have much in common with the Nazis



I don't think the gun sellers are "innocent".   They k now who they are selling to, they just don't care. 

Here we have another case, 9 people dead because someone who never should have had a gun was able to get one.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No, the rest of Germans endured them. Go to Lich sometime. There is a nice little cemetery in the Catholic cathedral there that houses German victims of the Gestapo. Ordinary Germans who somehow pissed off the authorities. As usual you ignore very real history. The facts are if you were a member of the Nazi Party you did pretty well. You had a good job, your wages were good, basically if you wanted to be able to do business in the Reich, you HAD to be a member.
> 
> But, membership had its costs too. In addition to the good jobs there were duties involved with being a member. One of those duties was making sure that no one got out of hand so the Police force in Germany was HUGE. They had city police. Highway police, mountain police, water protection police, postal protection police, railway police, fire protection police, customs police, tax collection police etc. etc. etc. They also had the National Labor Service (which Bill Clinton wanted to bring to this country, he didn't even bother to change the name) which was a para military organization that taught people to obey the authorities and arranged its workers in a military system. That way in addition to doing public works, they were also being trained as soldiers at the same time.
> 
> No, joeb, the population of Germany endured, they din' "support".
> 
> Though I have no doubt *you* would have risen high in the ranks of the Party.



Guy, the Population of Germany supported HItler up to the bitter end.  

In fact, a poll taken in the 1950's showed that most Germans considered Stauffenberg and his group traitors for trying to take HItler out. 

The Good Germans who didn't support HItler never showed up. It's why all you gun nuts with your fantasies about being "Freedom fighters" is so laughable.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> I have heard this is a good one...and it bears on the topic.....
> 
> Gun Control in the Third Reich Disarming the Jews and Enemies of the State - Kindle edition by Stephen P. Halbrook. Politics Social Sciences Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> You can find lectures by this gentleman on Youtube.......



But it's still horseshit.  The gun laws in Nazi Germany are more liberal than they are today in Germany.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a gun ban nut. What else could we expect?  His posts are completely off the wall whacked. That's why the last post he made to me was so ironic. We have Joe here being an advocate for locking up innocent people who have broken NO laws. Forgive the Godwin's law reference, but he really seems to have much in common with the Nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the gun sellers are "innocent".   They k now who they are selling to, they just don't care.
> 
> Here we have another case, 9 people dead because someone who never should have had a gun was able to get one.
Click to expand...


Moron, he passed the background check...at least that is what CNN is implying.....he bought the gun himself,at a gun store......

you do realize that background checks never stop mass shooters...right....because the mass shooting is their first and only crime so they can pass the background check with flying colors...and the ones too young....buy illegal guns like the two monsters in .columbine...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard this is a good one...and it bears on the topic.....
> 
> Gun Control in the Third Reich Disarming the Jews and Enemies of the State - Kindle edition by Stephen P. Halbrook. Politics Social Sciences Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> You can find lectures by this gentleman on Youtube.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's still horseshit.  The gun laws in Nazi Germany are more liberal than they are today in Germany.
Click to expand...



Moron...read the book I just picked up...."Gun Control in the 3rd Reich"...gun registration was implemented in 1928 during the Weimar Republic.....to keep people safe.  when the nazis came to power they used those lists to take guns away from Jews,and their political enemies...moron


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Oh and Jo(ke), here's another one you should attempt to read:
> The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton John Jay and James Madison



Again, could care less about the thoughts of dead slave rapists.  

Here's how I see it. Does it make sense TODAY to have guns so easily available that Joker Holmes and Darryl Roof and Adam Lanza can get them?  

The two reasons you clowns give is 

1) So I can defend myself against criminals (even though a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.) 

2) So I can take on the government if they do something I don't like (forgetting the government has tanks and bombers and nukes and shit.)


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron, he passed the background check...at least that is what CNN is implying.....he bought the gun himself,at a gun store......
> 
> you do realize that background checks never stop mass shooters...right....because the mass shooting is their first and only crime so they can pass the background check with flying colors...and the ones too young....buy illegal guns like the two monsters in .columbine...



Well, first, no, this guy shouldn't have passed a background check, as he had several arrests including one for gun possession.  

Second, the reports are his father gave him a gun, not that he bought it himself.  Will his father do some hard time?  I honestly hope so.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron...read the book I just picked up...."Gun Control in the 3rd Reich"...gun registration was implemented in 1928 during the Weimar Republic.....to keep people safe. when the nazis came to power they used those lists to take guns away from Jews,and their political enemies...moron



You can pick up any horseshit book you want. Fact is for GERMANS (who were 98% of the population of GERMANY) the gun laws were loosened.  gun ownership and proficiency was seen as a symbol of Aryan "manliness'.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and Jo(ke), here's another one you should attempt to read:
> The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton John Jay and James Madison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, could care less about the thoughts of dead slave rapists.
> 
> Here's how I see it. Does it make sense TODAY to have guns so easily available that Joker Holmes and Darryl Roof and Adam Lanza can get them?
> 
> The two reasons you clowns give is
> 
> 1) So I can defend myself against criminals (even though a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.)
> 
> 2) So I can take on the government if they do something I don't like (forgetting the government has tanks and bombers and nukes and shit.)
Click to expand...



Of course you site a statistic that is a lie...based on gang members as people who know each other.....

and of course we are walking away from Afghanistan and Iraq....with our satellites, jet fighters and advanced military.....and yet you think we couldn't do the same....moron..


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, he passed the background check...at least that is what CNN is implying.....he bought the gun himself,at a gun store......
> 
> you do realize that background checks never stop mass shooters...right....because the mass shooting is their first and only crime so they can pass the background check with flying colors...and the ones too young....buy illegal guns like the two monsters in .columbine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, no, this guy shouldn't have passed a background check, as he had several arrests including one for gun possession.
> 
> Second, the reports are his father gave him a gun, not that he bought it himself.  Will his father do some hard time?  I honestly hope so.
Click to expand...



you missed the new info...they gave him money for a birthday gift...he used it to buy the gun....they didn't know what he did with the money....moron...


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.



I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job. 

But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them. 

Because most people never do.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...read the book I just picked up...."Gun Control in the 3rd Reich"...gun registration was implemented in 1928 during the Weimar Republic.....to keep people safe. when the nazis came to power they used those lists to take guns away from Jews,and their political enemies...moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pick up any horseshit book you want. Fact is for GERMANS (who were 98% of the population of GERMANY) the gun laws were loosened.  gun ownership and proficiency was seen as a symbol of Aryan "manliness'.
Click to expand...



gun laws were restricted for the people they ended up sending to the death camps moron.....they disarmed them using the gun registration records from the Weimar Republic...who registered guns to keep people safe....moron...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job.
> 
> But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them.
> 
> Because most people never do.
Click to expand...



moron....he murdered a hated minority....a disarmed minority....he disarmed them first...moron.....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Of course you site a statistic that is a lie...based on gang members as people who know each other.....



We back to the gang thing I've debunked numerous times?  Gangs represent about 10% of homicides. 



2aguy said:


> and of course we are walking away from Afghanistan and Iraq....with our satellites, jet fighters and advanced military.....and yet you think we couldn't do the same....moron..



No, actually, I don't think Most Americans can put down their I-Phones long enough.  We are walking away from Iraq because it was never worth having to start with.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job.
> 
> But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them.
> 
> Because most people never do.
Click to expand...


Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> gun laws were restricted for the people they ended up sending to the death camps moron.....they disarmed them using the gun registration records from the Weimar Republic...who registered guns to keep people safe....moron...



Most of the people who ended up in Death Camps WEREN'T GERMANS.  They were people who were lived in countries Germany defeated. (and found their neighbors were happy to hand them over because they killed their Imaginary God Man on a Stick)


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you site a statistic that is a lie...based on gang members as people who know each other.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We back to the gang thing I've debunked numerous times?  Gangs represent about 10% of homicides.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and of course we are walking away from Afghanistan and Iraq....with our satellites, jet fighters and advanced military.....and yet you think we couldn't do the same....moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually, I don't think Most Americans can put down their I-Phones long enough.  We are walking away from Iraq because it was never worth having to start with.
Click to expand...


It was worth it to the backwards ass tribesman with rifles who fought us.....and we left....they didn't give up...and they had rifles.......not jets...


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...



Let me guess, on a military base.  

Long after the Nazis were gone.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun laws were restricted for the people they ended up sending to the death camps moron.....they disarmed them using the gun registration records from the Weimar Republic...who registered guns to keep people safe....moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the people who ended up in Death Camps WEREN'T GERMANS.  They were people who were lived in countries Germany defeated. (and found their neighbors were happy to hand them over because they killed their Imaginary God Man on a Stick)
Click to expand...




Again...disarmed minorities...see a pattern here?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> It was worth it to the backwards ass tribesman with rifles who fought us.....and we left....they didn't give up...and they had rifles.......not jets...



Well, it would have been a GREAT idea had Bush disarmed the Iraqi people like Eisenhower disarmed the Germans after WWII. BUt that would have upset Wayne and the National Rampage Association.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, on a military base.
> 
> Long after the Nazis were gone.
Click to expand...



Yeah..and my Grandfather was from Germany as well moron....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Again...disarmed minorities...see a pattern here?



No, I really don't.  They were "disarmed" because they LOST.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, on a military base.
> 
> Long after the Nazis were gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah..and my Grandfather was from Germany as well moron....
Click to expand...


Well, so, yeah, military base, no real knowledge.  Thanks.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and Jo(ke), here's another one you should attempt to read:
> The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton John Jay and James Madison
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again, could care less about the thoughts of dead slave rapists.*
> 
> Here's how I see it. Does it make sense TODAY to have guns so easily available that Joker Holmes and Darryl Roof and Adam Lanza can get them?
> 
> The two reasons you clowns give is
> 
> 1) So I can defend myself against criminals (even though a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.)
> 
> 2) So I can take on the government if they do something I don't like (forgetting the government has tanks and bombers and nukes and shit.)
Click to expand...

That's what I thought you'd say.......  Again you prove you know nothing about US history, go figure.
As for the rest I don't use those reasons, wrong again..... clown.......
As for you assertion that it's super easy for crazies to get firearms....... not as easy as it used to be and regardless of what restrictions you want they will still occasionally drop through the cracks.  You want to change it?  Get the 2nd Amendment repealed or ensure you stack SCOTUS with activist judges who use revisionist theory to ban private access to firearms.  Good luck with that Sputz.......


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job.
> 
> But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them.
> 
> Because most people never do.
Click to expand...

You have a degree in history??!!  Bull shit!  Lets compare credentials, shall we........
Yes, at first most Germans were good with what Hitler did, he took a country that was suffering the worst from the (worldwide) Great Depression and completely turned it into one of the most prosperous counties in the world at the time.  Why did most Germans not turn against him towards the end?  Again you show you know nothing about German history during that era and the fact you had relatives in Germany at the time means you only have a micro (single person) view of what was happening. 
Keep posting though Sputz, each time you show just how little you know and just how big a liar you are.


----------



## Ringel05

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job.
> 
> But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them.
> 
> Because most people never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...
Click to expand...

This idiot has proven again and again that he knows nothing about the Constitution and Constitutional Law but also that he has no clue referencing history and now has also proven he either cheated his way to a History degree or is lying about having one.  Basically he's a pathetic, clueless, lying hack that isn't worth anyones' time let alone any degree of respect.
From now on I'll treat him with nothing but the derision and scorn he deserves, no more wasting my time trying to teach him anything or trying to respond with fact and rational discussion, he's not worth it.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> so taking a few nazi bastards with you wasn't something you'd want to do?
> 
> figure not-you're a coward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, you gun nuts talk smack all day, but when Timothy McVeigh did his thing, you all headed to the tall grass.
Click to expand...


my office didn't have jurisdiction over him moron

and he did his thing with fertilizer

when the war on guns come, smart patriots target the soft side of the beast first


----------



## 2aguy

Ringel05 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job.
> 
> But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them.
> 
> Because most people never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This idiot has proven again and again that he knows nothing about the Constitution and Constitutional Law but also that he has no clue referencing history and now has also proven he either cheated his way to a History degree or is lying about having one.  Basically he's a pathetic, clueless, lying hack that isn't worth anyones' time let alone any degree of respect.
> From now on I'll treat him with nothing but the derision and scorn he deserves, no more wasting my time trying to teach him anything or trying to respond with fact and rational discussion, he's not worth it.
Click to expand...



Sadly, I have taken that point of view with most of the lefties here on U.S. message...for the longest time I was polite to people who called me names and attacked me viciously when I simply disagreed with them.   Mike Gallagher is at the Conservative leadership conference this weekend...and he talked about a speech given by Charles Krauthammer.  Krauthammer stated a truth in political debate......conservatives see lefties as dumb....lefties see conservatives as absolute evil...not an exact quote but close enough.  That is why they treat us with such disrespect and attack us so quickly and easily.  I have grown tired of dealing with them politely.  I used to watch Bill Maher's show in it's original configuration on HBO.  I would watch one conservative facing off against Maher and 3 other lefties...the conservative be polite...and the lefties be rude and outright mean.....over and over again, guest after guest.  It became apparent that being nice, and polite and responding to their hate and attacks with reasoned arguments just wasn't enough.....

I have pretty much had it.  From now on when they are rude or worse, I will let fly.


----------



## Ringel05

2aguy said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job.
> 
> But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them.
> 
> Because most people never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This idiot has proven again and again that he knows nothing about the Constitution and Constitutional Law but also that he has no clue referencing history and now has also proven he either cheated his way to a History degree or is lying about having one.  Basically he's a pathetic, clueless, lying hack that isn't worth anyones' time let alone any degree of respect.
> From now on I'll treat him with nothing but the derision and scorn he deserves, no more wasting my time trying to teach him anything or trying to respond with fact and rational discussion, he's not worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, I have taken that point of view with most of the lefties here on U.S. message...for the longest time I was polite to people who called me names and attacked me viciously when I simply disagreed with them.   Mike Gallagher is at the Conservative leadership conference this weekend...and he talked about a speech given by Charles Krauthammer.  Krauthammer stated a truth in political debate......conservatives see lefties as dumb....lefties see conservatives as absolute evil...not an exact quote but close enough.  That is why they treat us with such disrespect and attack us so quickly and easily.  I have grown tired of dealing with them politely.  I used to watch Bill Maher's show in it's original configuration on HBO.  I would watch one conservative facing off against Maher and 3 other lefties...the conservative be polite...and the lefties be rude and outright mean.....over and over again, guest after guest.  It became apparent that being nice, and polite and responding to their hate and attacks with reasoned arguments just wasn't enough.....
> 
> I have pretty much had it.  From now on when they are rude or worse, I will let fly.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not a lefty or a righty, righties are constantly calling me a moonbat, libtard, libturd, etc and lefties are always calling me wingnut, neo-con, etc......  So I have fun with both.......


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the rest of Germans endured them. Go to Lich sometime. There is a nice little cemetery in the Catholic cathedral there that houses German victims of the Gestapo. Ordinary Germans who somehow pissed off the authorities. As usual you ignore very real history. The facts are if you were a member of the Nazi Party you did pretty well. You had a good job, your wages were good, basically if you wanted to be able to do business in the Reich, you HAD to be a member.
> 
> But, membership had its costs too. In addition to the good jobs there were duties involved with being a member. One of those duties was making sure that no one got out of hand so the Police force in Germany was HUGE. They had city police. Highway police, mountain police, water protection police, postal protection police, railway police, fire protection police, customs police, tax collection police etc. etc. etc. They also had the National Labor Service (which Bill Clinton wanted to bring to this country, he didn't even bother to change the name) which was a para military organization that taught people to obey the authorities and arranged its workers in a military system. That way in addition to doing public works, they were also being trained as soldiers at the same time.
> 
> No, joeb, the population of Germany endured, they din' "support".
> 
> Though I have no doubt *you* would have risen high in the ranks of the Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the Population of Germany supported HItler up to the bitter end.
> 
> In fact, a poll taken in the 1950's showed that most Germans considered Stauffenberg and his group traitors for trying to take HItler out.
> 
> The Good Germans who didn't support HItler never showed up. It's why all you gun nuts with your fantasies about being "Freedom fighters" is so laughable.
Click to expand...







No, they didn't.  They survived him and his SD, and Abwher, and Gestapo as best they could.  Germany was a country ruled by terror.  I suggest you read some histories, Germany WAS the country you wish this country to become.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard this is a good one...and it bears on the topic.....
> 
> Gun Control in the Third Reich Disarming the Jews and Enemies of the State - Kindle edition by Stephen P. Halbrook. Politics Social Sciences Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> You can find lectures by this gentleman on Youtube.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's still horseshit.  The gun laws in Nazi Germany are more liberal than they are today in Germany.
Click to expand...







Nope.  There are today almost as many legal gun owners in Germany as there was in Nazi Germany.  Now, as it was true then, the wealthy have guns and the poor don't.  Interestingly enough they estimate there are 20 million ILLEGAL firearms in the country.  Who knew....

Information Graphic Gun Ownership in Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No, they didn't. They survived him and his SD, and Abwher, and Gestapo as best they could. Germany was a country ruled by terror. I suggest you read some histories, Germany WAS the country you wish this country to become.



Guy, again- 

The problem with this view, which a lot of Germans would want you to believe, is that Hitler was an abberation.  

No. Hitler was the manifestation of the worst aspects of German culture.  Hitler didn't invent German Antisemitism, Authoritarianism, or Militarism.  Those things were in the German Cultural DNA before the "Third Reich".   It's why they had a First and Second Reich, after all. 

It's why Hitler didn't need to ban guns for Germans.  He knew they'd fight for him to the last teenage boy and old man, and that's pretty much what they did. (By Contrast, the Italians and the Japanese gave up with much less prodding. They actually did turn on Mussolini and Tojo.)  

Or do you really think Hitler was such an evil genius that he could completely change the nature of a country in only a couple of years?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Sadly, I have taken that point of view with most of the lefties here on U.S. message...for the longest time I was polite to people who called me names and attacked me viciously when I simply disagreed with them. Mike Gallagher is at the Conservative leadership conference this weekend...and he talked about a speech given by Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer stated a truth in political debate......conservatives see lefties as dumb....lefties see conservatives as absolute evil...not an exact quote but close enough. That is why they treat us with such disrespect and attack us so quickly and easily. I have grown tired of dealing with them politely. I used to watch Bill Maher's show in it's original configuration on HBO. I would watch one conservative facing off against Maher and 3 other lefties...the conservative be polite...and the lefties be rude and outright mean.....over and over again, guest after guest. It became apparent that being nice, and polite and responding to their hate and attacks with reasoned arguments just wasn't enough.....
> 
> I have pretty much had it. From now on when they are rude or worse, I will let fly.



I'm not worried about your rudeness, dude.  

I worry about the fact that you regurgitate NRA talking points over and over again without anything resembling critical thought.  

Here's the thing. From 1980 to 2008, I was pretty fucking right wing.  and then I figured out the whole conservative movement is about erasing all the gains working people like me (and I suspect you) by distracting you by playing on your racial, sexual and religious fears.  

So when you question things like, "Why are all the good jobs going to China?" they'd rejoinder with "Hey, those homos want to take your guns."  

Except now I realize, It really doesn't matter if the homos get married, and frankly, most of you don't need guns.  I haven't touched a gun since I left the Army and my life is no worse off for it.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, I have taken that point of view with most of the lefties here on U.S. message...for the longest time I was polite to people who called me names and attacked me viciously when I simply disagreed with them. Mike Gallagher is at the Conservative leadership conference this weekend...and he talked about a speech given by Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer stated a truth in political debate......conservatives see lefties as dumb....lefties see conservatives as absolute evil...not an exact quote but close enough. That is why they treat us with such disrespect and attack us so quickly and easily. I have grown tired of dealing with them politely. I used to watch Bill Maher's show in it's original configuration on HBO. I would watch one conservative facing off against Maher and 3 other lefties...the conservative be polite...and the lefties be rude and outright mean.....over and over again, guest after guest. It became apparent that being nice, and polite and responding to their hate and attacks with reasoned arguments just wasn't enough.....
> 
> I have pretty much had it. From now on when they are rude or worse, I will let fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not worried about your rudeness, dude.
> 
> I worry about the fact that you regurgitate NRA talking points over and over again without anything resembling critical thought.
> 
> Here's the thing. From 1980 to 2008, I was pretty fucking right wing.  and then I figured out the whole conservative movement is about erasing all the gains working people like me (and I suspect you) by distracting you by playing on your racial, sexual and religious fears.
> 
> So when you question things like, "Why are all the good jobs going to China?" they'd rejoinder with "Hey, those homos want to take your guns."
> 
> Except now I realize, It really doesn't matter if the homos get married, and frankly, most of you don't need guns.  I haven't touched a gun since I left the Army and my life is no worse off for it.
Click to expand...



Dumb fuck, I don't regurgitate anything about guns it is half wits like you that spew the anti gun extremist talking points all day long.  Try looking up actual information some time.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Dumb fuck, I don't regurgitate anything about guns it is half wits like you that spew the anti gun extremist talking points all day long. Try looking up actual information some time.



I did. I've refuted every whacky study you've put on there.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb fuck, I don't regurgitate anything about guns it is half wits like you that spew the anti gun extremist talking points all day long. Try looking up actual information some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I've refuted every whacky study you've put on there.
Click to expand...



joe, moron, just saying "I refute thee," does not mean you have done anything more than show how stupid you are.


----------



## ChrisL

Ringel05 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German population was 80 million, at it's height the Nazi party membership was 5% of the population, add another couple of million supporters (non-members) inside and outside Germany (German and non-German) and you might have a total of 10% max, sure doesn't look like "most" to me....... Maybe if JoeBum actually studied the German and European history period from Bismarck's unification of Germany to 1945 he might develop a clue but I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.  What I also have - which you don't - are RELATIVES FROM GERMANY.  My father was born there.  I have uncles, aunts  and cousins who lived through the war, and yes, I had one Uncle who was a minor government official who joined the Nazi Party to keep his job.
> 
> But most Germans were totally good with what Hitler did, even after he started losing the war badly, even after the cities were reduced to rubble.  THey had guns, they just didn't use them.
> 
> Because most people never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck head....I was born there....what a moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This idiot has proven again and again that he knows nothing about the Constitution and Constitutional Law but also that he has no clue referencing history and now has also proven he either cheated his way to a History degree or is lying about having one.  Basically he's a pathetic, clueless, lying hack that isn't worth anyones' time let alone any degree of respect.
> From now on I'll treat him with nothing but the derision and scorn he deserves, no more wasting my time trying to teach him anything or trying to respond with fact and rational discussion, he's not worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, I have taken that point of view with most of the lefties here on U.S. message...for the longest time I was polite to people who called me names and attacked me viciously when I simply disagreed with them.   Mike Gallagher is at the Conservative leadership conference this weekend...and he talked about a speech given by Charles Krauthammer.  Krauthammer stated a truth in political debate......conservatives see lefties as dumb....lefties see conservatives as absolute evil...not an exact quote but close enough.  That is why they treat us with such disrespect and attack us so quickly and easily.  I have grown tired of dealing with them politely.  I used to watch Bill Maher's show in it's original configuration on HBO.  I would watch one conservative facing off against Maher and 3 other lefties...the conservative be polite...and the lefties be rude and outright mean.....over and over again, guest after guest.  It became apparent that being nice, and polite and responding to their hate and attacks with reasoned arguments just wasn't enough.....
> 
> I have pretty much had it.  From now on when they are rude or worse, I will let fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I'm not a lefty or a righty, righties are constantly calling me a moonbat, libtard, libturd, etc and lefties are always calling me wingnut, neo-con, etc......  So I have fun with both.......
Click to expand...


I have that same problem.  Bunch of insane nut-tards around here.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb fuck, I don't regurgitate anything about guns it is half wits like you that spew the anti gun extremist talking points all day long. Try looking up actual information some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I've refuted every whacky study you've put on there.
Click to expand...


Lol!  You haven't refuted anything.    You have advocated for putting innocent people in prison though, Nazi.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> joe, moron, just saying "I refute thee," does not mean you have done anything more than show how stupid you are.



Uh, yeah, it does, unless you have a religious belief that brave gun nuts are out foiling crimes like Batman every day.   You really can't argue with religious beliefs, unfortunately, they are impervious to facts.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Lol! You haven't refuted anything.  You have advocated for putting innocent people in prison though, Nazi.



Someone who armed Joker Holmes or Darryl Roof is not "innocent".  They are as guilty as they are. Maybe more so.  Those guys were nuts.  The person who sold them a gun was supposedly perfectly sane.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! You haven't refuted anything.  You have advocated for putting innocent people in prison though, Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who armed Joker Holmes or Darryl Roof is not "innocent".  They are as guilty as they are. Maybe more so.  Those guys were nuts.  The person who sold them a gun was supposedly perfectly sane.
Click to expand...


No they are not guilty of any crimes.  You lose . . . again.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! You haven't refuted anything.  You have advocated for putting innocent people in prison though, Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who armed Joker Holmes or Darryl Roof is not "innocent".  They are as guilty as they are. Maybe more so.  Those guys were nuts.  The person who sold them a gun was supposedly perfectly sane.
Click to expand...

Well, I see you've had your Foot Loops again this morning........  Funny how they go right to your head.......


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. They survived him and his SD, and Abwher, and Gestapo as best they could. Germany was a country ruled by terror. I suggest you read some histories, Germany WAS the country you wish this country to become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, again-
> 
> The problem with this view, which a lot of Germans would want you to believe, is that Hitler was an abberation.
> 
> No. Hitler was the manifestation of the worst aspects of German culture.  Hitler didn't invent German Antisemitism, Authoritarianism, or Militarism.  Those things were in the German Cultural DNA before the "Third Reich".   It's why they had a First and Second Reich, after all.
> 
> It's why Hitler didn't need to ban guns for Germans.  He knew they'd fight for him to the last teenage boy and old man, and that's pretty much what they did. (By Contrast, the Italians and the Japanese gave up with much less prodding. They actually did turn on Mussolini and Tojo.)
> 
> Or do you really think Hitler was such an evil genius that he could completely change the nature of a country in only a couple of years?
Click to expand...

And you claim to have a degree in History.......


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No they are not guilty of any crimes. You lose . . . again.



Give me a procescutor and an unllimited budget to investigate, i'd find them guilty of something.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> And you claim to have a degree in History.......



Duly noted you couldn't refute a point I made.  

So Hitler totally transformed the German Mind Set in six years, then?   

Really and Truly?


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to have a degree in History.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duly noted you couldn't refute a point I made.
> 
> So Hitler totally transformed the German Mind Set in six years, then?
> 
> Really and Truly?
Click to expand...

Refute a proven moron and liar?  

Never said Hitler transformed the German mindset in 6 years, that's your pathetic, uneducated accusation of those who don't believe your misinterpreted/misrepresented views.  Keep going Sputz, you don't know how funny it is to watch you dig that hole deeper.......


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Refute a proven moron and liar?
> 
> Never said Hitler transformed the German mindset in 6 years, that's your pathetic, uneducated accusation of those who don't believe your misinterpreted/misrepresented views. Keep going Sputz, you don't know how funny it is to watch you dig that hole deeper.......



Then you agree with my point that Germans were already antisemitic, authoritarian and militaristic? 

What are we arguing about again?  

Or are you just arguing to hear yourself talk?


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute a proven moron and liar?
> 
> Never said Hitler transformed the German mindset in 6 years, that's your pathetic, uneducated accusation of those who don't believe your misinterpreted/misrepresented views. Keep going Sputz, you don't know how funny it is to watch you dig that hole deeper.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you agree with my point that Germans were already antisemitic, authoritarian and militaristic?
> 
> What are we arguing about again?
> 
> Or are you just arguing to hear yourself talk?
Click to expand...

Again a pathetic attempt at broad brush generalization with little or no knowledge of the culture of either the Germans or the general western world views of Jews from the 1200s onward, to include those periods where Jews were protected and welcomed even in Germany.
As for militaristic and authoritarian you really should study western history or was it just the Germans that you think had those proclivities?  Keep diggin'......


----------



## Ringel05

And you're obviously completely ignorant of the public opinion backlash from the majority of the German people after kristallnacht that forced the Nazis to "tone down" their rhetoric and start keeping their anti-Semitic plans and actions as secret as possible to hide it from not only the world but also their own citizens.


----------



## Ringel05

Oh and let's not forget about the estimated 150,000 soldiers of Jewish descent that served in the Wehrmacht throughout the war.......  Intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews in Germany was quite prevalent.  Not only did the Nazis know about them they even gave special dispensations to some senior officers that actually worked with Hitler himself.  
Pathetic moron.  History degree my ass.......


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Again a pathetic attempt at broad brush generalization with little or no knowledge of the culture of either the Germans or the general western world views of Jews from the 1200s onward, to include those periods where Jews were protected and welcomed even in Germany.
> As for militaristic and authoritarian you really should study western history or was it just the Germans that you think had those proclivities? Keep diggin'......



So now you are running around in circles trying to regain your argument. 

Point is, anti-Jewish sentiment is a design feature of Christianity.  The Jews Killed Jesus. The Bible says so.  

So, no, the thing was, when Hitler started talking smack about the Jews, it wasn't a very long trip.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Oh and let's not forget about the estimated 150,000 soldiers of Jewish descent that served in the Wehrmacht throughout the war....... Intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews in Germany was quite prevalent. Not only did the Nazis know about them they even gave special dispensations to some senior officers that actually worked with Hitler himself.
> Pathetic moron. History degree my ass.......



So now you are resorting to irrelevent trivia... to prove,what exactly?  

So there were Jews with guns, is what you are saying. And they didn't try to stop Hitler at all?


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> And you're obviously completely ignorant of the public opinion backlash from the majority of the German people after kristallnacht that forced the Nazis to "tone down" their rhetoric and start keeping their anti-Semitic plans and actions as secret as possible to hide it from not only the world but also their own citizens.



Um, no, they really didn't tone it down that much.


----------



## shadow355

turtledude said:


> Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
> 
> its about time the courts start doing this.  Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense
> 
> Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus


 

 I use to read...quite frequently about the lawyers whom filed frivolous law suits....some repeatedly, were punished. You would think that State Supreme Courts and State bars would start clearing out the "Dumb Lawyers". Those whom make money, especially for a lengthy period of time, by taking court cases they know are ridiculous, juvenile, ignorant....and no way on hell will they win. To the very least they take cases that are well known long before hand, will get thrown out as soon as the Judge gets it. But the ignorant bottom feeder made a few bucks, and they manipulated their client with words and legal statements that the client did not understand. AND the lawyer made some money.....which was the most important thing. ( humph )


  Shadow 355


----------



## shadow355

DarkFury said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow $220,000.  This is why you never act on emotion without thinking rationally.
> 
> You know who should REALLY pay that fee, the attorney who convinced these parents they had a case.
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a point, a SMALL one. Pay the bill and move on. *
Click to expand...

 
I would be darned.

The purpose of legal Counsel is to receive fair and accurate legal representation to the best of their ability. If the Attorney was negligent, lazy, did not fairly represent their client(s), or acted incompetent.....then yes I agree they should pay the bill. 


 Shadow 355


----------



## shadow355

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow $220,000.  This is why you never act on emotion without thinking rationally.
> 
> You know who should REALLY pay that fee, the attorney who convinced these parents they had a case.


 
 Attorneys are looked highly upon, more than most other professions. BUT - they also have a high degree of responsibility. Money and effort is invested, and as a result the Atttorney(s) are obligated to correct wrongs made by others, and receive financial compensation in the legal ( tort ) proceeding. They are to provide competent representation in a criminal proceeding, doing the best they can for their client(s).

 Attorneys and a few other professions........in my opinion, have a higher standard and duty to perform.

 Any Attorney whom mistreats, or with intention misinforms or misrepresents their client.....should be punished !


 Shadow 355


----------



## shadow355

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Pool manufacturers get sued all the time.  For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.
> 
> Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.
Click to expand...

 

 Do certain standards not have to be met before a law suit can be filed?

                   AND/OR

 Does certain evidence not have to exist to file a law suit?

 Something along those lines....am I not correct?

 Any Legal Eagles about?

  Shadow 355


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're obviously completely ignorant of the public opinion backlash from the majority of the German people after kristallnacht that forced the Nazis to "tone down" their rhetoric and start keeping their anti-Semitic plans and actions as secret as possible to hide it from not only the world but also their own citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, they really didn't tone it down that much.
Click to expand...

Like I said, no use arguing with a fool, those watching might think I'm as stupid as you liar.  Your knowledge of history sucks probably because you only took a couple of classes then claimed to be an expert as everything about you scream emotive logic, no basis in reality.  
I figured I'd give you one more chance, shoulda known better and not wasted my time.  Have a nice life ya pathetic excuse for a human being.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Like I said, no use arguing with a fool, those watching might think I'm as stupid as you liar. Your knowledge of history sucks probably because you only took a couple of classes then claimed to be an expert as everything about you scream emotive logic, no basis in reality.
> I figured I'd give you one more chance, shoulda known better and not wasted my time. Have a nice life ya pathetic excuse for a human being.



Fun to watch you flop around on the deck like a fish out of water, but do you actually have a point to make here?  

so let's review.  Germans were militaristic, Anti-Semetic and Authoritarian as a culture long before Hitler showed up.  Hitler didn't really take their guns, he gave them more of them, and frankly, they fought for him to the last man. 

So the gun nut philosophy that Hitler was a gun-grabbing liberal is just silly.  Guns don't stop dictators.  They actually make them possible.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, no use arguing with a fool, those watching might think I'm as stupid as you liar. Your knowledge of history sucks probably because you only took a couple of classes then claimed to be an expert as everything about you scream emotive logic, no basis in reality.
> I figured I'd give you one more chance, shoulda known better and not wasted my time. Have a nice life ya pathetic excuse for a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun to watch you flop around on the deck like a fish out of water, but do you actually have a point to make here?
> 
> so let's review.  Germans were militaristic, Anti-Semetic and Authoritarian as a culture long before Hitler showed up.  Hitler didn't really take their guns, he gave them more of them, and frankly, they fought for him to the last man.
> 
> So the gun nut philosophy that Hitler was a gun-grabbing liberal is just silly.  Guns don't stop dictators.  They actually make them possible.
Click to expand...

I'll respond just this once and not with a refutation because you're obviously too blind or simply too stupid to see the actual facts basically because they don't align with your zealous singular pursuit of lies and hate.  That's why you're pathetic and no longer worth my time.  
I'm pretty sure you're gonna run around you mom's basement like a soccer player who just scored a goal pretending you won, no problem, enjoy your delusion cause it's not like delusion isn't a stranger to you...... it's your whole world.  Bye.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, no use arguing with a fool, those watching might think I'm as stupid as you liar. Your knowledge of history sucks probably because you only took a couple of classes then claimed to be an expert as everything about you scream emotive logic, no basis in reality.
> I figured I'd give you one more chance, shoulda known better and not wasted my time. Have a nice life ya pathetic excuse for a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun to watch you flop around on the deck like a fish out of water, but do you actually have a point to make here?
> 
> so let's review.  Germans were militaristic, Anti-Semetic and Authoritarian as a culture long before Hitler showed up.  Hitler didn't really take their guns, he gave them more of them, and frankly, they fought for him to the last man.
> 
> So the gun nut philosophy that Hitler was a gun-grabbing liberal is just silly.  Guns don't stop dictators.  They actually make them possible.
Click to expand...


Have you completely flipped your lid or what?


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> I'll respond just this once and not with a refutation because you're obviously too blind or simply too stupid to see the actual facts basically because they don't align with your zealous singular pursuit of lies and hate. That's why you're pathetic and no longer worth my time.
> I'm pretty sure you're gonna run around you mom's basement like a soccer player who just scored a goal pretending you won, no problem, enjoy your delusion cause it's not like delusion isn't a stranger to you...... it's your whole world. Bye.



Guy, you work on the assumption I really find you even a worthy opponent...

I don't. 

Your arguing style is kind of weak and lame.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Have you completely flipped your lid or what?



You inability to refute the points are duly noted.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll respond just this once and not with a refutation because you're obviously too blind or simply too stupid to see the actual facts basically because they don't align with your zealous singular pursuit of lies and hate. That's why you're pathetic and no longer worth my time.
> I'm pretty sure you're gonna run around you mom's basement like a soccer player who just scored a goal pretending you won, no problem, enjoy your delusion cause it's not like delusion isn't a stranger to you...... it's your whole world. Bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you work on the assumption I really find you even a worthy opponent...
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Your arguing style is kind of weak and lame.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you completely flipped your lid or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You inability to refute the points are duly noted.
Click to expand...


You've been shown links plenty of times about how the Nazis disarmed the Jewish people.  Why are you so stupid?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> You've been shown links plenty of times about how the Nazis disarmed the Jewish people. Why are you so stupid?



Well, I've been shown plenty of links from Whackjob Gun Nut sites.  "But, but, Hilter limited gun ownership for Jews!"  Yeah, but that was after he revoked their citizenship, which was kind of a bigger deal.  

Actually historical study shows Hitler lifted gun bans.  But that doesn't fit into the nice narrative of gun nuts who claim that their guns are what stops dictatorships.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been shown links plenty of times about how the Nazis disarmed the Jewish people. Why are you so stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've been shown plenty of links from Whackjob Gun Nut sites.  "But, but, Hilter limited gun ownership for Jews!"  Yeah, but that was after he revoked their citizenship, which was kind of a bigger deal.
> 
> Actually historical study shows Hitler lifted gun bans.  But that doesn't fit into the nice narrative of gun nuts who claim that their guns are what stops dictatorships.
Click to expand...


When the point is made that gun bans disarm those who might need to defend themselves against tyranny, the fact that Hitler disarmed the Jews and allowed those who followed him to own more guns is actually helping them make their point.

Yes, revoking their citizenship was a big deal.   But if they had been better armed they could have resisted longer and better against the genocide that Hitler was attempting.


----------



## Ringel05

I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership.  This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization.  The devil is in the details..........   
It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> When the point is made that gun bans disarm those who might need to defend themselves against tyranny, the fact that Hitler disarmed the Jews and allowed those who followed him to own more guns is actually helping them make their point.



No, it's really not. Anyone who thinks a few guns in the ghetto would be more than a speed bump for the Final Solution is deluding themselves.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
> It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.



which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated  

Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
> It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated
> 
> Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....
Click to expand...


nazis were left wing socialists. moron.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
> It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns*.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated
> 
> Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....
Click to expand...

Can you sat Treaty of Versailles?  I knew you could......... 
Yup, and you're just as big an asshole as your far right opponents, hell the only difference pertaining to attitudes and desire to enslave the American people is they tend to have an R after their names, you dicks tend to have a D after your names......


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the point is made that gun bans disarm those who might need to defend themselves against tyranny, the fact that Hitler disarmed the Jews and allowed those who followed him to own more guns is actually helping them make their point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's really not. Anyone who thinks a few guns in the ghetto would be more than a speed bump for the Final Solution is deluding themselves.
Click to expand...


We aren't talking about a "few" guns....we are talking levels of armed citizens like we are in the states......much more of a problem moron.......


----------



## Ringel05

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
> It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated
> 
> Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
Click to expand...

No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left.  Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.



Most political scientists classify Nazism on the right... sorry. 



Ringel05 said:


> Can you sat Treaty of Versailles? I knew you could.........
> Yup, and you're just as big an asshole as your far right opponents, hell the only difference pertaining to attitudes and desire to enslave the American people is they tend to have an R after their names, you dicks tend to have a D after your names......



That was the point.  The Weimars disarmed the country in the name of the ToV.   But also because you had armed gangs fighting in the streets- Nazis, Communists, Anarchists, Freikorps. 

Then Hitler came along and gave Germans back their rights to guns.   

So he's really has a poor showing as a "gun grabber" if there are more guns in private hands when he finished than when he started.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> We aren't talking about a "few" guns....we are talking levels of armed citizens like we are in the states......much more of a problem moron.......



Not really.  In fact, I imagine if they had fought back, they'd have just flattened the ghetto with bombs.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about a "few" guns....we are talking levels of armed citizens like we are in the states......much more of a problem moron.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  In fact, I imagine if they had fought back, they'd have just flattened the ghetto with bombs.
Click to expand...



Really.....and of course some Jews could have used guns to escape the Ghetto, perhaps and escaped Germany as a last resort.......of course guns would have made that easier.......


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most political scientists classify Nazism on the right... sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you sat Treaty of Versailles? I knew you could.........
> Yup, and you're just as big an asshole as your far right opponents, hell the only difference pertaining to attitudes and desire to enslave the American people is they tend to have an R after their names, you dicks tend to have a D after your names......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point.  The Weimars disarmed the country in the name of the ToV.   But also because you had armed gangs fighting in the streets- Nazis, Communists, Anarchists, Freikorps.
> 
> Then Hitler came along and gave Germans back their rights to guns.
> 
> So he's really has a poor showing as a "gun grabber" if there are more guns in private hands when he finished than when he started.
Click to expand...



Again....he disarmed the people he wanted to murder.......you really are stupid.....and if guns were no big deal......why disarm them at all.....right....?  Since they didn't matter...right?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Really.....and of course some Jews could have used guns to escape the Ghetto, perhaps and escaped Germany as a last resort.......of course guns would have made that easier.......



and gotten where, exactly? RIght into the loving hands of the Red Army, that could have saved them and didn't?


----------



## 2aguy

Ringel05 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
> It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated
> 
> Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left.  Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.
Click to expand...



Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Again....he disarmed the people he wanted to murder.......you really are stupid.....and if guns were no big deal......why disarm them at all.....right....? Since they didn't matter...right?



Same reason he stripped them of all their legal rights, property and so on.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most political scientists classify Nazism on the right... sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you sat Treaty of Versailles? I knew you could.........
> Yup, and you're just as big an asshole as your far right opponents, hell the only difference pertaining to attitudes and desire to enslave the American people is they tend to have an R after their names, you dicks tend to have a D after your names......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point.  The Weimars disarmed the country in the name of the ToV.   But also because you had armed gangs fighting in the streets- Nazis, Communists, Anarchists, Freikorps.
> 
> Then Hitler came along and gave Germans back their rights to guns.
> 
> So he's really has a poor showing as a "gun grabber" if there are more guns in private hands when he finished than when he started.
Click to expand...

You're grasping at straws...... as usual.  Based on the modern view (by some on the far and moderate right) he's still a gun grabber because of what were only allowed and who they were not to be given too.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....



Like what? Because you seem to think ante-bellum southerners were liberals.  I htink you are very confused on the political spectrum.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really.....and of course some Jews could have used guns to escape the Ghetto, perhaps and escaped Germany as a last resort.......of course guns would have made that easier.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gotten where, exactly? RIght into the loving hands of the Red Army, that could have saved them and didn't?
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really.....and of course some Jews could have used guns to escape the Ghetto, perhaps and escaped Germany as a last resort.......of course guns would have made that easier.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gotten where, exactly? RIght into the loving hands of the Red Army, that could have saved them and didn't?
Click to expand...



Well...like American pilots shot down during the war...to Switzerland or Spain.......


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> You're grasping at straws...... as usual. Based on the modern view (by some on the far and moderate right) he's still a gun grabber because of what were only allowed and who they were not to be given too.



So he's a gun grabber who left his population BETTER Armed than when he started...

So well armed that after the war, the Allied Powers had to go house to house to confiscate all the guns. 

Uh... yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## Ringel05

2aguy said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
> It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated
> 
> Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left.  Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....
Click to expand...

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.


----------



## 2aguy

Ringel05 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most political scientists classify Nazism on the right... sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you sat Treaty of Versailles? I knew you could.........
> Yup, and you're just as big an asshole as your far right opponents, hell the only difference pertaining to attitudes and desire to enslave the American people is they tend to have an R after their names, you dicks tend to have a D after your names......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point.  The Weimars disarmed the country in the name of the ToV.   But also because you had armed gangs fighting in the streets- Nazis, Communists, Anarchists, Freikorps.
> 
> Then Hitler came along and gave Germans back their rights to guns.
> 
> So he's really has a poor showing as a "gun grabber" if there are more guns in private hands when he finished than when he started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're grasping at straws...... as usual.  Based on the modern view (by some on the far and moderate right) he's still a gun grabber because of what were only allowed and who they were not to be given too.
Click to expand...


Most political scientists are leftists who don't want the all the mass murderers in history to be left wing socialists...the economic system they support...


----------



## 2aguy

Ringel05 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
> It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews *or other persecuted classes* (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated
> 
> Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left.  Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.
Click to expand...



Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt racism and the national characteristic.....


----------



## Ringel05

2aguy said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns.  And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated
> 
> Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise.  Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left.  Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt *racism and the national characteristic*.....
Click to expand...

Which made them the "right-wingers" of their era.  Every reputable historian and social scientist will confirm that.  Doesn't mean it equates to all but a small minority of extreme "right-wingers" in this country today.  To make a point concerning cultural/political differences within specific historical eras, without looking it up was TR (Teddy Roosevelt) a Republican or a Democrat?  He is considered one of the founders of Social Liberalism in this country.......


----------



## 2aguy

Ringel05 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> nazis were left wing socialists. moron.
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left.  Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt *racism and the national characteristic*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which made them the "right-wingers" of their era.  Every reputable historian and social scientist will confirm that.  Doesn't mean it equates to all but a small minority of extreme "right-wingers" in this country today.  To make a point concerning cultural/political differences within specific historical eras, without looking it up was TR (Teddy Roosevelt) a Republican or a Democrat?  He is considered one of the founders of Social Liberalism in this country.......
Click to expand...


He was a socialit/progressive......believed in central government...even eugenics.....

and those "reputable" historians and social scientists are wrong, many of whom are leftists trying to distance the national socialism from the international socialism....and you can see why....everyone hates nazis.....their crimes were made public...the communists are still loved in europe and even here in the U.S.....Paul McCartney's daughter used people dressed as castro and che in her fashion show.....and people didn't say crap about it....imagine if she had them dressed as hitler and in ss uniforms.....that is why they try to separate nazism from the socialism of the internaitonal socialists......


----------



## Ringel05

2aguy said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left.  Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt *racism and the national characteristic*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which made them the "right-wingers" of their era.  Every reputable historian and social scientist will confirm that.  Doesn't mean it equates to all but a small minority of extreme "right-wingers" in this country today.  To make a point concerning cultural/political differences within specific historical eras, without looking it up was TR (Teddy Roosevelt) a Republican or a Democrat?  He is considered one of the founders of Social Liberalism in this country.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was a socialit/progressive......believed in central government...even eugenics.....
> 
> and those "reputable" historians and social scientists are wrong, many of whom are leftists trying to distance the national socialism from the international socialism....and you can see why....everyone hates nazis.....their crimes were made public...the communists are still loved in europe and even here in the U.S.....Paul McCartney's daughter used people dressed as castro and che in her fashion show.....and people didn't say crap about it....imagine if she had them dressed as hitler and in ss uniforms.....that is why they try to separate nazism from the socialism of the internaitonal socialists......
Click to expand...

No they're not wrong based on the historical context and yes the communists were much worse, the difference is they were on the "winning side" and were able to hide it or claim Capitalist propaganda for much of the rest of it.  This obviously means many in this country and around the world have a skewed view of Communist Socialism.
Oh and TR was a Republican as were most social liberals of the time, the mostly complete ideological flip-flop didn't completely take effect until after the 1960s.


----------



## JoeB131

Ringel05 said:


> Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.



Uh, no, in the context of the times, it was pretty right wing.  Racist, nationalist, pro-industry, pro-wealth, pro-militarism.  

Your desire to hang Hilter aroudn the necks of your opponents is cute and all, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> He was a socialit/progressive......believed in central government...even eugenics.....



Eugenics is not a left wing idea.  Sorry. Argument fail.


----------



## Ringel05

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, in the context of the times, it was pretty right wing.  Racist, nationalist, pro-industry, pro-wealth, pro-militarism.
> 
> Your desire to hang Hilter aroudn the necks of your opponents is cute and all, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did you get the idea I was trying to hang Hitler around the necks of my opponents when I spcifically said just the opposite???!!!!!  You truly are pathetic.


----------



## 2aguy

Here are some sources that I use because they can be posted.....

Franco's fascism...more socialism...

Articles Leftist Mythology of the Spanish Civil War

Foss and Gerahty during the war wrote of Franco: "He was in no sense a 'Fascist' leader. At the outside, when the present struggle broke out, there were not more than 8,000 _Falangistas_ in Spain, and even that party was not 'Fascist'"
[ii] and they note that if Franco wins: "Spain...will be in essence a Socialist State."
Hamilton writes of Falangist icon Primo de Rivera: "[His] views on the Church, the landowners, the age-old problems of Spain, were decidedly Left-wing. Even making allowance for the fact that such radical views are a customary part of fascist tactics, the similarity of his views to those of extreme Leftists was remarkable. In the spring of 1936, for example, when he was contesting a by-election at Cuenca against a Socialist candidate, he professed complete agreement with the views of his opposition on all except one point - autonomy for Catalonia and the Basque provinces"[vi] and Hamilton observes that "Many extreme Leftists in fact had joined the Phalanx."[vii] Cardozo wrote in his 1937 book, _The March of a Nation_:  "There are Falangists...little different from the Socialists they have been fighting"[viii] and quotes Franco: "I want Labour to be protected in every way against the abuses of Capitalism."
Why people are confused about fascism, socialism and communism to this day...

Articles Rethinking the Political Spectrum

The soviet story at the 2:30 mark goebbles talks about the similarity of communism and nazism


youtube video... The Soviet Story: Why murder is essential to communism



on mussolini...

Fascism is Merely Heretical Communism Like Liberalism Conservative Colloquium

More sources R.J. Rummel....and pipes...

Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced; another was rated the 26th most important of the last century), six novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His website is here.

Hitler Was A Socialist And Not A Right Wing Conservative DemocraticPeace Blog

Mussolini&#8217;s _fascism_ was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler&#8217;s _National Socialism_was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by  those German politicians who thought they could control him &#8212; see &#8220;What? Hitler Was Not Elected?&#8221;) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers&#8217; Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews
His book, "Death by Government" is great. I think I donated my copy to the library so eventually I'll have to reaquire it for my kindle.

I just hope he has his basics on political science down.

Also, another great book, "Property and Freedom," By Richard Pipes.

From wikipedia on Mr. Pipes:

Richard Pipes - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Pipes taught at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in 1996. He was the director of Harvard's Russian Research Center from 1968 to 1973 and is now Baird Professor Emeritus of History at Harvard University. In 1962 he delivered a series of lectures on Russian intellectual history at Leningrad University. He acted as senior consultant at the Stanford Research Institute from 1973 to 1978. During the 1970s, he was an advisor to Washington Senator Henry M. Jackson. In 1981 and 1982 he served as a member of the National Security Council, holding the post of Director of East European and Soviet Affairs under President Ronald Reagan.[SUP][5][/SUP] Pipes was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger from 1977 until 1992 and belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations. In the 1970s, Pipes was a leading critic of détente, which he described as "inspired by intellectual indolence and based on ignorance of one's antagonist and therefore inherently inept".[SUP][6][/SUP]
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0999h.asp

Pipes concisely and impressively analyzes the differences and similarities in
20th-century Soviet communism, Italian fascism, and German national socialism.
All three systems shared a common hatred for classical liberalism and the
institution of private property. While the Soviets abolished private property
outright and imposed central planning, in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany most
property remained nominally in private hands but was completely controlled and
directed by government central command. His detailed summary of the Nazi
economic system clearly shows that (contrary to the Marxian claim) capitalism
was destroyed under national socialism.
R.J. Rummel

Hitler Was A Socialist And Not A Right Wing Conservative DemocraticPeace Blog


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, in the context of the times, it was pretty right wing.  Racist, nationalist, pro-industry, pro-wealth, pro-militarism.
> 
> Your desire to hang Hilter aroudn the necks of your opponents is cute and all, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.
Click to expand...



Joe....the marxist theories were just as racist...watch the video where the marxist view of those races too far behind the historical curve will be eliminated.......this is before the national socialists even existed.........hitler hated capitalism...and the marxists were just as militaristic...how else  was their "class struggle" going to lead to an overthrow.....

remember....socialism...the government controlling the means of production was the last step before true communism....the national socialists just stopped at that point...they controlled the economy at all levels...thus...socialism and socialism is left wing not right wing......

In Europe, if you look at how they describe their "right wing" it is really just the extreme far left...their "right" wing isn't interested in free market capitalism is it?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Here are some sources that I use because they can be posted.....
> 
> Franco's fascism...more socialism...



Yawn... guy, sorry, you'd get laughed out of a political science class with that shit. 

This guy hits it on the head. 

Nazism and Fascism were Ideologies of the Right Ph.D. Octopus

Third, the Nazi regime did not completely take over all large businesses and industries, but rather colluded with them, most famously with chemical company I.G. Farben. This is a crucial mistake people make about fascism: businesses in fascist states like Hitler’s Germany are not necessarily government owned, and can to some degree  function within a market-oriented capitalist framework subject to the laws of supply and demand. Fascism, in this totalitarian form, functioned occasionally with brute force, like on Kristalnacht, but often through more subtle means. Fascism more frequently used coercive force like that at play in Jeremy Bentham and Michel Foucault’s Panopticon, a prison that exerted social control through fear of being watched rather than naked displays of state power. This, along with Hitler’s popularity, rendered capitalist business compatible with Nazism, so long as those involved with it were Aryans who obeyed the regime.

Most important, we know Nazism was an ideology of the far right because of the very logic behind it. Unlike socialism, *Nazism was a hierarchical, Socially Darwinistic vision that encouraged competition, and  showed disdain for the masses, who Hitler called “mentally lazy.” Most crucially, it did not denigrate individualism, but in fact celebrated it. This is evident in Hitler’s major work, Mein Kampf. 

*


----------



## 2aguy

And from an actual economist....

Mises Daily Mises Institute


My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der National_sozialistische_ Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National _Socialist_ German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

*What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of thesubstantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.*

*De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State.* If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established _de facto_ socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

He goes on to show how the nazis took over complete direction of the economy as socialism does....


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the point is made that gun bans disarm those who might need to defend themselves against tyranny, the fact that Hitler disarmed the Jews and allowed those who followed him to own more guns is actually helping them make their point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's really not. Anyone who thinks a few guns in the ghetto would be more than a speed bump for the Final Solution is deluding themselves.
Click to expand...


Not really.   Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Joe....the marxist theories were just as racist...watch the video where the marxist view of those races too far behind the historical curve will be eliminated.......this is before the national socialists even existed.........hitler hated capitalism...and the marxists were just as militaristic...how else was their "class struggle" going to lead to an overthrow.....



Guy, I'm not going to follow your bizarre pretzel logic of trying to apply 19th century thought to the modern world.  

Hitler loved some capitalism.  the Krupps and the other German industrialists did very well under Hitler. Until he lost the war, anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.



Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them. 

So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them.
> 
> So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.
Click to expand...



Were the Russians "Humane" to the Afghanis during their occupation.......and they held out long enough for the U.S. to get involved and without jets, or tanks, or advanced tech, drove out the Russians.........


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them.
> 
> So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.
Click to expand...


Absolute nonsense.   You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them.
> 
> So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.   You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?
Click to expand...


He is a waste of band width, plain and simple.  He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar.  Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment.  It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.



And yet you do. 

Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you do.
> 
> Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".
Click to expand...


Legitimate documentation of what?  I was speaking in general about you.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you do.
> 
> Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legitimate documentation of what?  I was speaking in general about you.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean when I don't accept your gun nut lies?  

Fact- 32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries, and 400,000 gun crimes a year.  

Your fetish is to expensive for the rest of us.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you do.
> 
> Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legitimate documentation of what?  I was speaking in general about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean when I don't accept your gun nut lies?
> 
> Fact- 32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries, and 400,000 gun crimes a year.
> 
> Your fetish is to expensive for the rest of us.
Click to expand...


20000 of those gun deaths are suicides

your chance of getting murdered with a gun are .000035 in 100000

But tell me why don't you support real punishment for gun crimes?

automatic Life in a federal prison for any crime committed with a gun and the death penalty for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm that results in a death.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> 20000 of those gun deaths are suicides
> 
> your chance of getting murdered with a gun are .000035 in 100000
> 
> But tell me why don't you support real punishment for gun crimes?
> 
> automatic Life in a federal prison for any crime committed with a gun and the death penalty for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm that results in a death.



we lock up 2 million people. If locking people up stopped Crime, we'd have the lowest crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20000 of those gun deaths are suicides
> 
> your chance of getting murdered with a gun are .000035 in 100000
> 
> But tell me why don't you support real punishment for gun crimes?
> 
> automatic Life in a federal prison for any crime committed with a gun and the death penalty for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm that results in a death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we lock up 2 million people. If locking people up stopped Crime, we'd have the lowest crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.
Click to expand...


we lock up millions of NONVIOLENT drug offenders and let killers back on the streets because we think locking up a guy for having a little cocaine is more important


----------



## WinterBorn

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20000 of those gun deaths are suicides
> 
> your chance of getting murdered with a gun are .000035 in 100000
> 
> But tell me why don't you support real punishment for gun crimes?
> 
> automatic Life in a federal prison for any crime committed with a gun and the death penalty for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm that results in a death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we lock up 2 million people. If locking people up stopped Crime, we'd have the lowest crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we lock up millions of NONVIOLENT drug offenders and let killers back on the streets because we think locking up a guy for having a little cocaine is more important
Click to expand...


THIS!   Thank you.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> we lock up millions of NONVIOLENT drug offenders and let killers back on the streets because we think locking up a guy for having a little cocaine is more important



No, we don't.  We lock up millions of non-violent drug offenders because the big corporations you Wingnuts worship are making obscene amounts of money on cheap labor. 

Killers are back on the street because more often than not, they've done their time under the plea agreements prosecutors reached with them to save us all prison costs.  

If we did it your way, every defendent would demand a full trial by jury, because, hey, why not?


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we lock up millions of NONVIOLENT drug offenders and let killers back on the streets because we think locking up a guy for having a little cocaine is more important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We lock up millions of non-violent drug offenders because the big corporations you Wingnuts worship are making obscene amounts of money on cheap labor.
> 
> Killers are back on the street because more often than not, they've done their time under the plea agreements prosecutors reached with them to save us all prison costs.
> 
> If we did it your way, every defendent would demand a full trial by jury, because, hey, why not?
Click to expand...


And if we did it your way we would send people to prison without a trial?   And send people to prison who have committed no crime?    

Yeah, I'll take our way every time.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> And if we did it your way we would send people to prison without a trial? And send people to prison who have committed no crime?
> 
> Yeah, I'll take our way every time.



Well, no.  

There'd be a lot less people in prison if we did it my way.  But the people who belong there would be there. 

Sell a gun to a mass murderer- go to jail. 

Smoke a little weed.  Not so much.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if we did it your way we would send people to prison without a trial? And send people to prison who have committed no crime?
> 
> Yeah, I'll take our way every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.
> 
> There'd be a lot less people in prison if we did it my way.  But the people who belong there would be there.
> 
> Sell a gun to a mass murderer- go to jail.
> 
> Smoke a little weed.  Not so much.
Click to expand...


SO sell a bottle of gin to a drunk driver and go to jail too?


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we lock up millions of NONVIOLENT drug offenders and let killers back on the streets because we think locking up a guy for having a little cocaine is more important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We lock up millions of non-violent drug offenders because the big corporations you Wingnuts worship are making obscene amounts of money on cheap labor.
> 
> Killers are back on the street because more often than not, they've done their time under the plea agreements prosecutors reached with them to save us all prison costs.
> 
> If we did it your way, every defendent would demand a full trial by jury, because, hey, why not?
Click to expand...


We stop prosecuting petty drug offenses (hell if i had it my way all drugs would be decriminalized) then we'll have all the time in the world and more than enough prison space necessary to put violent offenders away for life


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if we did it your way we would send people to prison without a trial? And send people to prison who have committed no crime?
> 
> Yeah, I'll take our way every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.
> 
> There'd be a lot less people in prison if we did it my way.  But the people who belong there would be there.
> 
> Sell a gun to a mass murderer- go to jail.
> 
> Smoke a little weed.  Not so much.
Click to expand...


So whether you break the law or not doesn't matter.  It is all about whether JoeyB thinks you are a bad person.

Sorry, thats not how it works.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we lock up millions of NONVIOLENT drug offenders and let killers back on the streets because we think locking up a guy for having a little cocaine is more important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We lock up millions of non-violent drug offenders because the big corporations you Wingnuts worship are making obscene amounts of money on cheap labor.
> 
> Killers are back on the street because more often than not, they've done their time under the plea agreements prosecutors reached with them to save us all prison costs.
> 
> If we did it your way, every defendent would demand a full trial by jury, because, hey, why not?
Click to expand...


Because of what big corporations?  How are big corporations benefiting from locking people up?  You are just wrong.  The reason why people are locked up most often for "nonviolent" crimes is because they were found committing other crimes.  

For example, a man breaks into a home, the police are called.  They come to arrest him and find drugs on him.  There's a "nonviolent" charge.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> We stop prosecuting petty drug offenses (hell if i had it my way all drugs would be decriminalized) then we'll have all the time in the world and more than enough prison space necessary to put violent offenders away for life



Not really.  But keep telling yourself we can imprison our way to civility. 

Most gun deaths are done by people who never murdered before and will never murder again, even if they do get out.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> So whether you break the law or not doesn't matter. It is all about whether JoeyB thinks you are a bad person.
> 
> Sorry, thats not how it works.



No, the way it should work is - if your actions cause harm, you should be held accountable. 

The gun industry causes harm.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Because of what big corporations? How are big corporations benefiting from locking people up? You are just wrong. The reason why people are locked up most often for "nonviolent" crimes is because they were found committing other crimes.



Not that I think you are capable of learning much of anything, but Google "Prison-Industrial Complex" to learn how big corporations are making a killing locking people up. 

There's a reason why Germany only locks up 68,000 people and we lock up 2 million.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We stop prosecuting petty drug offenses (hell if i had it my way all drugs would be decriminalized) then we'll have all the time in the world and more than enough prison space necessary to put violent offenders away for life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  But keep telling yourself we can imprison our way to civility.
> 
> Most gun deaths are done by people who never murdered before and will never murder again, even if they do get out.
Click to expand...


So what?

ALL first crimes are committed by people who never committed a crime.

When it comes to gun crimes we can guarantee that the first crime is the last and that threat may deter some


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whether you break the law or not doesn't matter. It is all about whether JoeyB thinks you are a bad person.
> 
> Sorry, thats not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the way it should work is - if your actions cause harm, you should be held accountable.
> 
> The gun industry causes harm.
Click to expand...


The gun is an inanimate object.  A person cause harm if they use a gun to kill someone.

99.99% of privately owned guns are never used to harm anyone.  

And despite the nonsense you posted, you ARE, in fact, advocating the imprisonment of people who broke no law.  That is the way it works.  That is reality.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We stop prosecuting petty drug offenses (hell if i had it my way all drugs would be decriminalized) then we'll have all the time in the world and more than enough prison space necessary to put violent offenders away for life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  But keep telling yourself we can imprison our way to civility.
> 
> Most gun deaths are done by people who never murdered before and will never murder again, even if they do get out.
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence that most murders are committed by someone who have never committed a murder and never will again?

The majority of people in prison are there because of nonviolent drug offenses.  Stop imprisoning those people and the prison population will go down significantly.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20000 of those gun deaths are suicides
> 
> your chance of getting murdered with a gun are .000035 in 100000
> 
> But tell me why don't you support real punishment for gun crimes?
> 
> automatic Life in a federal prison for any crime committed with a gun and the death penalty for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm that results in a death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we lock up 2 million people. If locking people up stopped Crime, we'd have the lowest crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.
Click to expand...



We let gun criminals go with light sentences...the guy who murdered the two police officers had just gotten out of jail.....and had weapon charges in his past....as most criminals do....lock them up and keep them locked up....


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you do.
> 
> Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legitimate documentation of what?  I was speaking in general about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean when I don't accept your gun nut lies?
> 
> Fact- 32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries, and 400,000 gun crimes a year.
> 
> Your fetish is to expensive for the rest of us.
Click to expand...


No, your fear is too expensive for the rest of US.  Your fears do not trump my rights.  Perhaps you should take some Valium or something.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of what big corporations? How are big corporations benefiting from locking people up? You are just wrong. The reason why people are locked up most often for "nonviolent" crimes is because they were found committing other crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I think you are capable of learning much of anything, but Google "Prison-Industrial Complex" to learn how big corporations are making a killing locking people up.
> 
> There's a reason why Germany only locks up 68,000 people and we lock up 2 million.
Click to expand...


How much bigger is the US population wise?  Hello?


----------



## turtledude

JoeB continues to soil his pants over his fears that gun owners will mainly vote for anti-socialist candidates


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The gun is an inanimate object. A person cause harm if they use a gun to kill someone.
> 
> 99.99% of privately owned guns are never used to harm anyone.
> 
> And despite the nonsense you posted, you ARE, in fact, advocating the imprisonment of people who broke no law. That is the way it works. That is reality.



actually, they are accessories.  You can easily make that case with the right prosecutors and right jury.   at the very least, you can economically ruin them.  

You think a j ury is really going to care 'Well, he didn't come up on the database" when they are shown the autopsy photos of the people Holmes or Roof killed?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> There's a reason why Germany only locks up 68,000 people and we lock up 2 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much bigger is the US population wise?  Hello?
Click to expand...


Wow, so in addition to being batshit crazy, you are also bad at math. 

Okay- let's try this. 

USA - Population 308,000,000  - we lock up 2,000,000 people.  We lock up one out of 154 citizens. 

Germany has a population of 80,000,000.  they lock up 78,000*  people.  They lock up 1 out of 1000 people.  Japan has a population of 110,000,000, and locks up 68,000 people.  They lock up one out of 1410 people. 

(*Correction, I flipped Japan and Germany's numbers.) 

We lock up a ridiculous amount of people. We have a ridiculous amount of guns.  and we have the highest crime rates in the Industrial World. 

If Guns and prisons made us safer, why aren't we safer?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No, your fear is too expensive for the rest of US. Your fears do not trump my rights. Perhaps you should take some Valium or something.



32,000 dead a year.  Not worth your fetish.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun is an inanimate object. A person cause harm if they use a gun to kill someone.
> 
> 99.99% of privately owned guns are never used to harm anyone.
> 
> And despite the nonsense you posted, you ARE, in fact, advocating the imprisonment of people who broke no law. That is the way it works. That is reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, they are accessories.  You can easily make that case with the right prosecutors and right jury.   at the very least, you can economically ruin them.
> 
> You think a j ury is really going to care 'Well, he didn't come up on the database" when they are shown the autopsy photos of the people Holmes or Roof killed?
Click to expand...


No, they cannot.  Unless you completely rewrite the definition of accessory.

Yes, I do think the jury is going to care.  They will see that the gun dealer used the proper procedures, followed the law, and got the approval of the federal gov't.

Now, they might wonder WHY the lunatic's name wasn't in the database.  It would be easier to prosecute the mental health professionals who did not follow the required procedures.

But in order to be convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you must break the law.  The gun dealers broke no law.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your fear is too expensive for the rest of US. Your fears do not trump my rights. Perhaps you should take some Valium or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 dead a year.  Not worth your fetish.
Click to expand...


21,000 by their own hand.  Less than 10,000 by gun murders.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> No, they cannot. Unless you completely rewrite the definition of accessory.
> 
> Yes, I do think the jury is going to care. They will see that the gun dealer used the proper procedures, followed the law, and got the approval of the federal gov't.
> 
> Now, they might wonder WHY the lunatic's name wasn't in the database. It would be easier to prosecute the mental health professionals who did not follow the required procedures.
> 
> But in order to be convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you must break the law. The gun dealers broke no law.



again, you bring your database. 

I'll bring grieving family members and autopsy photos...


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cannot. Unless you completely rewrite the definition of accessory.
> 
> Yes, I do think the jury is going to care. They will see that the gun dealer used the proper procedures, followed the law, and got the approval of the federal gov't.
> 
> Now, they might wonder WHY the lunatic's name wasn't in the database. It would be easier to prosecute the mental health professionals who did not follow the required procedures.
> 
> But in order to be convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you must break the law. The gun dealers broke no law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you bring your database.
> 
> I'll bring grieving family members and autopsy photos...
Click to expand...


No, I bring the law.  You bring fantasy and the audacity to prey on the families of victims.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> No, I bring the law. You bring fantasy and the audacity to prey on the families of victims.



the only person who preyed on the families were the gun industry and the nuts they happily sell to.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I bring the law. You bring fantasy and the audacity to prey on the families of victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only person who preyed on the families were the gun industry and the nuts they happily sell to.
Click to expand...


The gun dealer committed no crime.  You can stamp your feet and throw tantrums all day long, but that does not change unless you change the laws.  Good luck with that one.

The person responsible for the murders is the one who pulled the trigger.   The one who sold the gun, and followed all the rules, laws, and regulations, is not responsible.  If anyone else is responsible, it would be those who failed to update the system used to determine who is not allowed to buy a firearm.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> The gun dealer committed no crime. You can stamp your feet and throw tantrums all day long, but that does not change unless you change the laws. Good luck with that one.



again, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.  



WinterBorn said:


> The person responsible for the murders is the one who pulled the trigger. The one who sold the gun, and followed all the rules, laws, and regulations, is not responsible. If anyone else is responsible, it would be those who failed to update the system used to determine who is not allowed to buy a firearm.



No, it was a gun industry that insisted on selling guns to crazy people.  

Because Foundign Fathers... or something.  

Throw a few of them in prison, make them pay a few million dollar judgements, like big tobacco did, and they aren't going to be so keen on that.


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun dealer committed no crime. You can stamp your feet and throw tantrums all day long, but that does not change unless you change the laws. Good luck with that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person responsible for the murders is the one who pulled the trigger. The one who sold the gun, and followed all the rules, laws, and regulations, is not responsible. If anyone else is responsible, it would be those who failed to update the system used to determine who is not allowed to buy a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it was a gun industry that insisted on selling guns to crazy people.
> 
> Because Foundign Fathers... or something.
> 
> Throw a few of them in prison, make them pay a few million dollar judgements, like big tobacco did, and they aren't going to be so keen on that.
Click to expand...



Again, an indictment by a grad jury is not a conviction.  It simply means that a trial will take place.  Perhaps you should have stayed awake in class.

No, the gun industry insisted on selling guns to people who have not been banned from purchasing a firearm.  That you think a gun dealer should be held responsible for determining someone's mental health and the danger they represent, while mental health professionals should not be held responsible for reporting those same people, shows the lunacy of your own proposals.

The fact is that the gun dealer broke no law.  Expecting someone to be sent to prison because you WANT it is insanity, pure and simple.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your fear is too expensive for the rest of US. Your fears do not trump my rights. Perhaps you should take some Valium or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 dead a year.  Not worth your fetish.
Click to expand...


It's not a "fetish."  It's a constitutionally guaranteed right, as well as a natural right - the right to self defense.  You're scared?  Too bad, so sad.  Like I said, your illogical and delusional fears do not trump everyone elses' rights.  Got it?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun dealer committed no crime. You can stamp your feet and throw tantrums all day long, but that does not change unless you change the laws. Good luck with that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person responsible for the murders is the one who pulled the trigger. The one who sold the gun, and followed all the rules, laws, and regulations, is not responsible. If anyone else is responsible, it would be those who failed to update the system used to determine who is not allowed to buy a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it was a gun industry that insisted on selling guns to crazy people.
> 
> Because Foundign Fathers... or something.
> 
> Throw a few of them in prison, make them pay a few million dollar judgements, like big tobacco did, and they aren't going to be so keen on that.
Click to expand...


You are a complete idiot, seriously.  I've been trying to be nice to you, but you are so dense and such an idiot, that it is literally impossible to show a semblance of common courtesy.  I think you should be locked up . . . in a mental institution.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cannot. Unless you completely rewrite the definition of accessory.
> 
> Yes, I do think the jury is going to care. They will see that the gun dealer used the proper procedures, followed the law, and got the approval of the federal gov't.
> 
> Now, they might wonder WHY the lunatic's name wasn't in the database. It would be easier to prosecute the mental health professionals who did not follow the required procedures.
> 
> But in order to be convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you must break the law. The gun dealers broke no law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you bring your database.
> 
> I'll bring grieving family members and autopsy photos...
Click to expand...


Oh yes, emotional games rather than using logic.  Figures.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> There's a reason why Germany only locks up 68,000 people and we lock up 2 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much bigger is the US population wise?  Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, so in addition to being batshit crazy, you are also bad at math.
> 
> Okay- let's try this.
> 
> USA - Population 308,000,000  - we lock up 2,000,000 people.  We lock up one out of 154 citizens.
> 
> Germany has a population of 80,000,000.  they lock up 78,000*  people.  They lock up 1 out of 1000 people.  Japan has a population of 110,000,000, and locks up 68,000 people.  They lock up one out of 1410 people.
> 
> (*Correction, I flipped Japan and Germany's numbers.)
> 
> We lock up a ridiculous amount of people. We have a ridiculous amount of guns.  and we have the highest crime rates in the Industrial World.
> 
> If Guns and prisons made us safer, why aren't we safer?
Click to expand...


So . . . one would think you would be happy that the US is aggressive with imprisoning the criminal element of our society.  Also, one reason why our incarceration statistics would be high is because of our inner city black gang problem.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun dealer committed no crime. You can stamp your feet and throw tantrums all day long, but that does not change unless you change the laws. Good luck with that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person responsible for the murders is the one who pulled the trigger. The one who sold the gun, and followed all the rules, laws, and regulations, is not responsible. If anyone else is responsible, it would be those who failed to update the system used to determine who is not allowed to buy a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it was a gun industry that insisted on selling guns to crazy people.
> 
> Because Foundign Fathers... or something.
> 
> Throw a few of them in prison, make them pay a few million dollar judgements, like big tobacco did, and they aren't going to be so keen on that.
Click to expand...


"Because founding fathers or something?"  God, what an idiot you are.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> It's not a "fetish." It's a constitutionally guaranteed right, as well as a natural right - the right to self defense. You're scared? Too bad, so sad. Like I said, your illogical and delusional fears do not trump everyone elses' rights. Got it?



Again, there are no "rights'. 

There are privilages the rest of society lets you have.  

Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> "Because founding fathers or something?" God, what an idiot you are.



yes, I base policy on the hear and now, not what some fucked up old slave rapists said 200 years ago.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> Wow, so in addition to being batshit crazy, you are also bad at math.
> 
> Okay- let's try this.
> 
> USA - Population 308,000,000  - we lock up 2,000,000 people.  We lock up one out of 154 citizens.
> 
> Germany has a population of 80,000,000.  they lock up 78,000*  people.  They lock up 1 out of 1000 people.  Japan has a population of 110,000,000, and locks up 68,000 people.  They lock up one out of 1410 people.
> 
> (*Correction, I flipped Japan and Germany's numbers.)
> 
> We lock up a ridiculous amount of people. We have a ridiculous amount of guns.  and we have the highest crime rates in the Industrial World.
> 
> If Guns and prisons made us safer, why aren't we safer?



if gun control and gun bans made us safer why is Mexico so dangerous

and we don't have the highest crime r rates in the "industrial world"

and our white citizens have lower rates of violence than whites living in gun banning socialist paradises


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "fetish." It's a constitutionally guaranteed right, as well as a natural right - the right to self defense. You're scared? Too bad, so sad. Like I said, your illogical and delusional fears do not trump everyone elses' rights. Got it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there are no "rights'.
> 
> There are privilages the rest of society lets you have.
> 
> Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".
Click to expand...


Nope, there are rights, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.  We have a right to LIFE, and therefore we have a right to protect our lives.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Because founding fathers or something?" God, what an idiot you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I base policy on the hear and now, not what some fucked up old slave rapists said 200 years ago.
Click to expand...


Well, perhaps you should learn to spell correctly first.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> if gun control and gun bans made us safer why is Mexico so dangerous



Mexico has a right to bear arms, just like we do.  It's in their constitution, which was cribbed from ours. 



turtledude said:


> and we don't have the highest crime r rates in the "industrial world"



Yes, we do.  Look it up.  Russia and Mexico don't count.  



turtledude said:


> and our white citizens have lower rates of violence than whites living in gun banning socialist paradises



Wow, it's another rendition of, "It's okay when the Darkies kill each other."  Dylan Roof would be proud of you.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Nope, there are rights, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We have a right to LIFE, and therefore we have a right to protect our lives.



We abort a million fetuses a year.  So much for a "Right to Life".  We are also one of the last industrial countries that still executes people.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> Mexico has a right to bear arms, just like we do.  It's in their constitution, which was cribbed from ours.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's another rendition of, "It's okay when the Darkies kill each other."  Dylan Roof would be proud of you.




stop lying you stupid ass.  IN Mexico  you can only own what the military says you can and there is like one gun shop for millions.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> stop lying you stupid ass. IN Mexico you can only own what the military says you can and there is like one gun shop for millions.



But you can own guns.  That's the thing.  YOu just can't own military grade guns.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop lying you stupid ass. IN Mexico you can only own what the military says you can and there is like one gun shop for millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can own guns.  That's the thing.  YOu just can't own military grade guns.
Click to expand...


what's a military grade gun moron?


----------



## JoeB131

Isn't this where I came in? 

Okay, I'm done with this thread.  You guys can go back to shitting yourselves over the thought that SCOTUS will take away your "gun rights"... heh, heh, heh.


----------



## Ringel05

The Jo(ke) is still posting?  I think I'll get some of my "military grade" firearms (the ones that I can't own) and go to the range today.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop lying you stupid ass. IN Mexico you can only own what the military says you can and there is like one gun shop for millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can own guns.  That's the thing.  YOu just can't own military grade guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what's a military grade gun moron?
Click to expand...


Oh, now it's "military grade" guns with Joe?    He is totally grasping at straws now.


----------

