# Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.



## eagle1462010

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry

BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.


“They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.

“I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.

Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.

But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.

The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.

Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.

Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”

Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.

U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.

“It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”


This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Katzndogz

They will lose.


----------



## ChrisL

That is one of the most ridiculous things ever.  Has everyone in our country gone insane or something?


----------



## eagle1462010

ChrisL said:


> That is one of the most ridiculous things ever.  Has everyone in our country gone insane or something?


Seems that way..................The Crazy never ends here anymore...............


----------



## ChrisL

So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.


----------



## ChrisL

This is just another ploy to try to take one of our rights.


----------



## ChrisL

I'm sure the ultimate goal here is to try to put gun manufacturers out of business.


----------



## eagle1462010

ChrisL said:


> This is just another ploy to try to take one of our rights.


Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............

If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......

Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................


----------



## ChrisL

eagle1462010 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another ploy to try to take one of our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
Click to expand...


I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!


----------



## couch protester

eagle1462010 said:


> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................



How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. 

4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.


----------



## Dale Smith

I doubt that any parent from the alleged shooting at the Sandy Hoax false flag media event will dare risk discovery because this whole thing reeks and the FOIA requests that they have been denying will come to light...but what it does do is set a precedent that will allow the families of real victims of a shooting to sue gun manufacturers. Frankly, I have reached that point that I don't give a shit if people attempt to demonize me for calling this event for what it was...a live shooter training event that was portrayed as a real time event. Pictures of the iconic event with kids placing their hands on each other's shoulders were taken in the Fall when the weather was warmer. One pic shows a little boy at the front of the line...another pic shows him being in the bvack. I have found over 50 anomalies about Sandy Hoax that cannot stand up to scrutiny........good thing I am a web rat...and "NO", I do not own even so much as a slingshot...but I knew when someone is pissing up my leg while trying to tell me it is raining even though the sky is blue. I would loe for someone to dispute my claims........bring on the debate because I will bury them under an avalanche of evidence that shows that this was 100 percent staged.


----------



## ChrisL

Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.


----------



## Dale Smith

ChrisL said:


> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.



I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......


----------



## ChrisL

Who killed his mom then?  Also, there are different levels of autism, some are just "social awkwardness" types of things.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dale Smith said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
Click to expand...


Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.


----------



## easyt65

FAT people can / should be able to sue FORK makers...

...after all it was the FORK'S fault, right?!


----------



## easyt65

Victims of Drunk Driver accidents can / should be able to sue the maker of whatever alcohol the drunk driver was drinking...

....after all, it was the booze's fault, right?!


----------



## ChrisL

easyt65 said:


> FAT people can / should be able to sue FORK makers...



Or spork makers.


----------



## ChrisL

Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.


----------



## eagle1462010

I stubbed my toe on a door frame once.................I can sue all of them door making suckers.......including the guy cutting down the trees.....................


----------



## Dale Smith

eagle1462010 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
Click to expand...


Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??


----------



## easyt65

Oh no - fat people are VICTIMS. If we get rid of forks we will end obesity...much like if we get rid of guns we will eliminate murder / gun crime, right liberals?!

Liberals have the most f*ed-up logic sometimes....like:

A baker has no right NOT to serve someone based on their morals, but Bruce Springstein can break his contract and refuse to put on a concert somewhere based on HIS personal beliefs / morals...

As long as rules that provide for the enforcement of what THEY believe are carried out life is good, no matter how f*ing STUPID they are.

Based on this specific ruling / idea the precedence is / will be set to allow victims / families of victims of those killed by HAMMERS to sue hammer manufacturers, car companies to be sued if their brand/model of car was involved in a hit-and-run / fatality, for KNIFE manufacturers to be sued for stabbing crimes....

Ob, no?  Why? Are liberals going to insist this only applies to GUNS...because they are specifically trying to get rid of guns?


----------



## eagle1462010

Dale Smith said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
Click to expand...

Your proof.........


----------



## Dale Smith

ChrisL said:


> Who killed his mom then?  Also, there are different levels of autism, some are just "social awkwardness" types of things.




How do we know that his alleged mother is dead? Have you seen an autopsy report? Why were there so many cop cars at her next door neighbor's home within 30 minutes of this alleged event? Did they get lost???? Did you know that the owner of this home was involved in setting up donation sites???.......curious minds want to know.....


----------



## Dale Smith

eagle1462010 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof.........
Click to expand...



Do your own due diligence...research it....no evidence that I could post here would sway you...I can lead you to water but it's your responsibility to drink from the well. I have found over 50 things that do not pass my sniff test about Sandy Hoax...and believe me, I didn't and I still don't want to believe the things that I have found out.....just too fucking creepy to me.


----------



## ChrisL

Dale Smith said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own due diligence...research it....no evidence that I could post here would sway you...I can lead you to water but it's your responsibility to drink from the well. I have found over 50 things that do not pass my sniff test about Sandy Hoax...and believe me, I didn't and I still don't want to believe the things that I have found out.....just too fucking creepy to me.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you believe a lot of conspiracies.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dale Smith said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own due diligence...research it....no evidence that I could post here would sway you...I can lead you to water but it's your responsibility to drink from the well. I have found over 50 things that do not pass my sniff test about Sandy Hoax...and believe me, I didn't and I still don't want to believe the things that I have found out.....just too fucking creepy to me.
Click to expand...

When you told me about the empty shells ejecting in your face that you shot you lost some cred there pal..............I've shot many weapons in my time.............that dog didn't hunt with me.


----------



## The Great Goose

Only in America.


----------



## Dale Smith

ChrisL said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own due diligence...research it....no evidence that I could post here would sway you...I can lead you to water but it's your responsibility to drink from the well. I have found over 50 things that do not pass my sniff test about Sandy Hoax...and believe me, I didn't and I still don't want to believe the things that I have found out.....just too fucking creepy to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you believe a lot of conspiracies.
Click to expand...



Maybe because very few things that happen  that affects us negatively that is publicized are not the result of happenstance....... it is part of a bigger agenda....to sway the masses in a certain direction or distract them.


----------



## ChrisL

The Great Goose said:


> Only in America.



Are you an American?


----------



## ChrisL

Dale Smith said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own due diligence...research it....no evidence that I could post here would sway you...I can lead you to water but it's your responsibility to drink from the well. I have found over 50 things that do not pass my sniff test about Sandy Hoax...and believe me, I didn't and I still don't want to believe the things that I have found out.....just too fucking creepy to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you believe a lot of conspiracies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because very few things that happen  that affects us negatively that is publicized are not the result of happenstance....... it is part of a bigger agenda....to sway the masses in a certain direction or distract them.
Click to expand...


Perhaps in some instances, but this is a pretty big secret to have to keep with a LOT of people involved.  I know people, and they have big mouths.    I also know that they have active imaginations sometimes.


----------



## Dale Smith

eagle1462010 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those rounds eject to the right away from the face..........are you shooting left handed with a right handed gun.................because that is the only way the ejection is towards the face..............at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own due diligence...research it....no evidence that I could post here would sway you...I can lead you to water but it's your responsibility to drink from the well. I have found over 50 things that do not pass my sniff test about Sandy Hoax...and believe me, I didn't and I still don't want to believe the things that I have found out.....just too fucking creepy to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you told me about the empty shells ejecting in your face that you shot you lost some cred there pal..............I've shot many weapons in my time.............that dog didn't hunt with me.
Click to expand...


The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......


----------



## Dale Smith

ChrisL said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit that a Bushmaster was actually used...they changed the story to fit the narrative to indict the use of a semi-automatic weapon....until they got their stories straight, it was handguns that he was carrying with multiple clips. Don't buy the bullshit you have been fed by the lamestream media...if he used that weapon to allegedly kill those kids...how and the fuck did he allegedly commit suicide??
> 
> 
> 
> Your proof.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own due diligence...research it....no evidence that I could post here would sway you...I can lead you to water but it's your responsibility to drink from the well. I have found over 50 things that do not pass my sniff test about Sandy Hoax...and believe me, I didn't and I still don't want to believe the things that I have found out.....just too fucking creepy to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you believe a lot of conspiracies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because very few things that happen  that affects us negatively that is publicized are not the result of happenstance....... it is part of a bigger agenda....to sway the masses in a certain direction or distract them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps in some instances, but this is a pretty big secret to have to keep with a LOT of people involved.  I know people, and they have big mouths.    I also know that they have active imaginations sometimes.
Click to expand...



Not where huge sums of money are involved and a NSA that can track everything you do while threatening your  loved ones if you don't go along??


----------



## ChrisL

Oh come on!  Lol.  That is just way too far fetched.  Why is it hard for you to believe that the kid freaked and went and killed a bunch of kids because they were an easy target?  His mother also had worked at the school, I believe.  

Sorry, but the official story makes more sense than the conspiracy theory.


----------



## ChrisL

Oops.  Someone voted "yes" on the poll.  What a loon.


----------



## easyt65

Liberal justification:

Years ago, during the infamous LA riots, a black mob pulled a white truck driver out of the cab of his truck at a blocked intersection and beat the man. One particular black rioter was on camera picking up a brick, smashiing it down on the driver's head, and dancing around the nearly unconscious man..

This individual was eventually arrested and charge with attempted murder. He was not convicted, the case / charge was thrown out because - NO $HIT - they decided a BRICK was not a 'weapon', that it was 'construction material', and thus - not being a 'weapon', like a gun or knife, the infividual could / not be charged with attempted murder. This PO$ WALKED!

WTF?!


----------



## eagle1462010

ChrisL said:


> Oops.  Someone voted "yes" on the poll.  What a loon.


It's just the leftist loon.............One Percent..............typical for those types...................


----------



## ChrisL

easyt65 said:


> Liberal justification:
> 
> Years ago, during the infamous LA riots, a black mob pulled a white truck driver out of the cab of his truck at a blocked intersection and beat the man. One particular black rioter was on camera picking up a brick, smashiing it down on the driver's head, and dancing around the nearly unconscious man..
> 
> This individual was eventually arrested and charge with attempted murder. He was not convicted, the case / charge was thrown out because - NO $HIT - they decided a BRICK was not a 'weapon', that it was 'construction material', and thus - not being a 'weapon', like a gun or knife, the infividual could / not be charged with attempted murder. This PO$ WALKED!
> 
> WTF?!



Seriously?


----------



## ChrisL

eagle1462010 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.  Someone voted "yes" on the poll.  What a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just the leftist loon.............One Percent..............typical for those types...................
Click to expand...


Hey, I have some views that you might consider "leftist."    Watch you mouth!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

How are you going to stop all of these mass killings ?

What is the plan ?


----------



## Iceweasel

Dale Smith said:


> The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......


Shells don't eject into your face with any regularity, who could sell such a gun? I did have a .45acp round hit my forehead once, but only once. Were you doing the gansta sideways shooting? 

Lanza used a handgun, not the AR. Yes, you can put a semi-auto round through your skull, why wouldn't you be able to? 

As far as the OP, I believe the suit would only apply to Connecticut manufacturer, like Bushmaster (last I heard). Many of them are fleeing the north due to this sort of hostility. I don't see how a Connecticut ruling could effect another state. But as said, the suit will be a big loser for the idiots, the weapon, even if used, wasn't defective.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> They will lose.



Not necessarily. I would love to have a jury see the autopsy and crime scene photographs from Sandy Hook and have a Bushmaster executive try to explain away why giving a military grade weapon to people as crazy as the Lanza family was a good idea.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................



and you'll meekly hand them over when they do. 

Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea. 

Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I'm sure the ultimate goal here is to try to put gun manufacturers out of business.



Yes, yes, it is.  or at least change the way they do business. 

Let's look back at the tobacco companies.  What we found out through the tobacco lawsuit was that the tobacco industry was intentionally increasing nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive and marketing the product intentionally to teens.  

The gun industry does the same thing, except they hike addiction to fear instead of nicotine. 

You see, the gun industry made a decision, when hunting started to decline as a sport in this country, to market their products to homeowners.  If a study from the CDC found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, they got all funding for gun studies cut. 

they sold bigger guns to bad people so other people would be scared and want more guns, too. 

Now, i think that the Sandy Hook case might be weak because Nancy Lanza was only moderately crazy, as opposed to her son, who was completely around the bend.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Most gun deaths aren't criminals.  Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic arguments and accidents.  

Adam Lanza was a completely law abiding citizen before he went on his rampage.


----------



## PredFan

It's time to start thinking about resistance.


----------



## eagle1462010

Joe is just another like this guy....................Best dang gun salesmen in the country..............


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.



Yeah, fuck those greiving parents.  You might have to fill out an extra piece of paperwork.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gun deaths aren't criminals.  Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic arguments and accidents.
> 
> Adam Lanza was a completely law abiding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Click to expand...

So the fuck what...............You will punish law abiding citizens who haven't done a damn thing wrong with guns..............You can pass any law you want..........doesn't make it go away.........

By your own rhetoric...........There are laws against speeding...........Naw nobody will violate that..............LOL


----------



## PredFan

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuck those greiving parents.  You might have to fill out an extra piece of paperwork.
Click to expand...


Idiot.

Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.


----------



## PredFan

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gun deaths aren't criminals.  Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic arguments and accidents.
> 
> Adam Lanza was a completely law abiding citizen before he went on his rampage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the fuck what...............You will punish law abiding citizens who haven't done a damn thing wrong with guns..............You can pass any law you want..........doesn't make it go away.........
> 
> By your own rhetoric...........There are laws against speeding...........Naw nobody will violate that..............LOL
Click to expand...


Yeah, we'll use the same strategy we used in the war on drugs. Since it works so well.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuck those greiving parents.  You might have to fill out an extra piece of paperwork.
Click to expand...







Grieving parents should sue whoever made that bus...............right......................


----------



## pwjohn

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuck those greiving parents.  You might have to fill out an extra piece of paperwork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grieving parents should sue whoever made that bus...............right......................
Click to expand...


Yes. And they will. The highway should have a barrier to maintain separation as well, And judging from the positon of the vehicles, the trucking company too for causing the accident.


----------



## eagle1462010

Hell lets sue everyone..............a guy cut me off in traffic yesterday and flipped me off........I think I'll sue Ford for his shitty driving......and the county for not posting signs on Not Flipping Off other drivers............


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
Click to expand...


Guns are a legal product Joe.  You can't sue somebody for selling a legal product just because somebody misused it. 

And just how do gun manufacturers intentionally market their product to mentally unstable people?  Do they get a mentally unstable people list and send them catalogs of their products?  Do they have advertisements in mental wards and clinics?  

Maybe we should hold video game manufacturers responsible too.  Lanza loved those violent video games.  In fact, that's what probably led to his rampage because he couldn't decipher reality from fiction.


----------



## jon_berzerk

ChrisL said:


> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.




yes that is what they are asking for


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> So the fuck what...............You will punish law abiding citizens who haven't done a damn thing wrong with guns..............You can pass any law you want..........doesn't make it go away.........
> 
> By your own rhetoric...........There are laws against speeding...........Naw nobody will violate that..............LOL



I think you've stumbled into a good analogy.  No, Speeding laws will never be entirely obeyed.  But they are better than someone barrelling at 80MPH through a school zone, eh?  

By your logic, we should have no speed  limits, because the Founding Slave Rapists wanted us to run down government Bureaucrats some day or something, so those kids should be on their own when some lunatic drives through at 80 MPH even if most people have the common sense to only drive at 25.   And the guy who does barrel down through there at 80MPH should keep doing it until he turns a kid into street pizza, and then we'll do something about it.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fuck what...............You will punish law abiding citizens who haven't done a damn thing wrong with guns..............You can pass any law you want..........doesn't make it go away.........
> 
> By your own rhetoric...........There are laws against speeding...........Naw nobody will violate that..............LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've stumbled into a good analogy.  No, Speeding laws will never be entirely obeyed.  But they are better than someone barrelling at 80MPH through a school zone, eh?
> 
> By your logic, we should have no speed  limits, because the Founding Slave Rapists wanted us to run down government Bureaucrats some day or something, so those kids should be on their own when some lunatic drives through at 80 MPH even if most people have the common sense to only drive at 25.   And the guy who does barrel down through there at 80MPH should keep doing it until he turns a kid into street pizza, and then we'll do something about it.
Click to expand...

Dramatize the subject.............try to picture a splat on the ground from a speeder.............and say............See IT'S THE SAME THING......

No the hell it isn't..........

That speeder..................did this.............so that guy in the other car doing the speed limit and stopping for the kids.............you want to TAKE HIS CAR..............because some asshole speed though a school zone and killed children....................

We don't get rid of CARS to solve the problem Mr. Genius.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Guns are a legal product Joe. You can't sue somebody for selling a legal product just because somebody misused it.



Again, you should check in with the tobacco companies.  You should check in with the makers of sudafed when we found out that people could covert it into Crystal Meth and they put restrictions on its sale.  Talk to the manufacturers of fertilizers who found their products restricted after a few mutants figured out how to make bombs out of it by mixing it with diesel fuel.




Ray From Cleveland said:


> And just how do gun manufacturers intentionally market their product to mentally unstable people? Do they get a mentally unstable people list and send them catalogs of their products? Do they have advertisements in mental wards and clinics?



If you are the kind of person who this ad appeals to, then you are pretty much a sociopath. 







I know being a gun nut, you probably don't realize how fucking crazy you sound most of the time with you Snuff-fantasies about shooting people you don't like (which pretty much describes half of your and 2AGuy's posts) but frankly, the Gun industry feeds your crazy.   And once in a while, a few of you go beyond talk and do something crazy. 




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Maybe we should hold video game manufacturers responsible too. Lanza loved those violent video games. In fact, that's what probably led to his rampage because he couldn't decipher reality from fiction.



Except Lanza didnt kill anyone with a video game.  He killed people with a gun.  You see, funny thing. In Japan, they have these SAME GAMES, but they don't have mass shootings.  Because they don't let miltiary grade weapons get into the hands of an Adam Lanza.


----------



## JoeB131

PredFan said:


> Idiot.
> 
> Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.



Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.  

Only 22% of households own guns.  Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use.  That's not the gun industries key market.  Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns.  The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a legal product Joe. You can't sue somebody for selling a legal product just because somebody misused it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you should check in with the tobacco companies.  You should check in with the makers of sudafed when we found out that people could covert it into Crystal Meth and they put restrictions on its sale.  Talk to the manufacturers of fertilizers who found their products restricted after a few mutants figured out how to make bombs out of it by mixing it with diesel fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just how do gun manufacturers intentionally market their product to mentally unstable people? Do they get a mentally unstable people list and send them catalogs of their products? Do they have advertisements in mental wards and clinics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are the kind of person who this ad appeals to, then you are pretty much a sociopath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know being a gun nut, you probably don't realize how fucking crazy you sound most of the time with you Snuff-fantasies about shooting people you don't like (which pretty much describes half of your and 2AGuy's posts) but frankly, the Gun industry feeds your crazy.   And once in a while, a few of you go beyond talk and do something crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should hold video game manufacturers responsible too. Lanza loved those violent video games. In fact, that's what probably led to his rampage because he couldn't decipher reality from fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Lanza didnt kill anyone with a video game.  He killed people with a gun.  You see, funny thing. In Japan, they have these SAME GAMES, but they don't have mass shootings.  Because they don't let miltiary grade weapons get into the hands of an Adam Lanza.
Click to expand...


I'm far from a gun nut.  In fact I only have a couple of guns.  I am a believer in our constitutional right to protect ourselves.  I believe in our ability to overpower evil instead of the other way around the way liberals would have it. 

I fail to see where your "ad" would be targeting (no pun intended) mentally unstable people. Why don't you admit you just made that all up?  You do that a lot you know.......like saying I have some inclination to shoot people I don't like.  WTF did I ever say that?


----------



## jon_berzerk

if anything the families should be suing the school 

for falsely claiming that the school was a gun free zone


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Dramatize the subject.............try to picture a splat on the ground from a speeder.............and say............See IT'S THE SAME THING......
> 
> No the hell it isn't..........
> 
> That speeder..................did this.............so that guy in the other car doing the speed limit and stopping for the kids.............you want to TAKE HIS CAR..............because some asshole speed though a school zone and killed children....................
> 
> We don't get rid of CARS to solve the problem Mr. Genius.



And we don't really need to.  We can and do regulate the use of cars effectively.  

We don't regulate the use of guns, which is why you get a Lanza or a Mercer or a Holmes who everyone in their lives knew was batshit crazy but they were able to get a gun, anyway.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.
> 
> Only 22% of households own guns.  Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use.  That's not the gun industries key market.  Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns.  The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.
Click to expand...


Lanza's mother was considered mentally unstable?  Have any link to that? 

As far as I remember, she was a legal gun owner; bought her guns from gun dealers in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.


----------



## jon_berzerk

if 


JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a legal product Joe. You can't sue somebody for selling a legal product just because somebody misused it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you should check in with the tobacco companies.  You should check in with the makers of sudafed when we found out that people could covert it into Crystal Meth and they put restrictions on its sale.  Talk to the manufacturers of fertilizers who found their products restricted after a few mutants figured out how to make bombs out of it by mixing it with diesel fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just how do gun manufacturers intentionally market their product to mentally unstable people? Do they get a mentally unstable people list and send them catalogs of their products? Do they have advertisements in mental wards and clinics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are the kind of person who this ad appeals to, then you are pretty much a sociopath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know being a gun nut, you probably don't realize how fucking crazy you sound most of the time with you Snuff-fantasies about shooting people you don't like (which pretty much describes half of your and 2AGuy's posts) but frankly, the Gun industry feeds your crazy.   And once in a while, a few of you go beyond talk and do something crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should hold video game manufacturers responsible too. Lanza loved those violent video games. In fact, that's what probably led to his rampage because he couldn't decipher reality from fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Lanza didnt kill anyone with a video game.  He killed people with a gun.  You see, funny thing. In Japan, they have these SAME GAMES, but they don't have mass shootings.  Because they don't let miltiary grade weapons get into the hands of an Adam Lanza.
Click to expand...


and if you are featured in one these 






consider you man card revoked 

--LOL


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm far from a gun nut.



have you taken a look at your avatar lately?  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I am a believer in our constitutional right to protect ourselves



From what?  Seriously, you gun nuts arm yourselves like the Zombie Apocalypse is about to break out next week, and then you wonder when some member of the club goes off the deep end. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I believe in our ability to overpower evil instead of the other way around the way liberals would have it.



So what evil was Adam Lanza overpowering?  I mean, admittably, a preschooler having a meltdown can be pretty unnerving, but I do think your boy Adam overreacted. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I fail to see where your "ad" would be targeting (no pun intended) mentally unstable people. Why don't you admit you just made that all up?



Again, guy, if you think that anyone stable would think his manhood would be restored by owning  a battlefield weapon, maybe you should look into your own mental stability. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You do that a lot you know.......like saying I have some inclination to shoot people I don't like. WTF did I ever say that?



Again, have you looked at your avatar lately?


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dramatize the subject.............try to picture a splat on the ground from a speeder.............and say............See IT'S THE SAME THING......
> 
> No the hell it isn't..........
> 
> That speeder..................did this.............so that guy in the other car doing the speed limit and stopping for the kids.............you want to TAKE HIS CAR..............because some asshole speed though a school zone and killed children....................
> 
> We don't get rid of CARS to solve the problem Mr. Genius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't really need to.  We can and do regulate the use of cars effectively.
> 
> We don't regulate the use of guns, which is why you get a Lanza or a Mercer or a Holmes who everyone in their lives knew was batshit crazy but they were able to get a gun, anyway.
Click to expand...

Your spinnig it..........as always..............you can make the SAFEST CAR IN THE WORLD...........and you still can't control the driver......Your counter point is an abject FAILURE.............

Saying we put safety into guns.........well most guns have a safety.............that doesn't stop it from going to fire and mowing down people when a psycho gets one............just the same as a psycho who runs over 20 kids by doing 80 mph in a school zone....

Your entire argument using this rhetoric is a FAILURE...............

You want to take the guns............you've admitted so in the past.........so you should want to OUTLAW cars by your own arguments.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lanza's mother was considered mentally unstable? Have any link to that?
> 
> As far as I remember, she was a legal gun owner; bought her guns from gun dealers in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.



Well, she was a prepper... So yeah, she was nuts.  

"State with the most restrictive gun laws" is like "Leper with the most fingers"


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dramatize the subject.............try to picture a splat on the ground from a speeder.............and say............See IT'S THE SAME THING......
> 
> No the hell it isn't..........
> 
> That speeder..................did this.............so that guy in the other car doing the speed limit and stopping for the kids.............you want to TAKE HIS CAR..............because some asshole speed though a school zone and killed children....................
> 
> We don't get rid of CARS to solve the problem Mr. Genius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't really need to.  We can and do regulate the use of cars effectively.
> 
> We don't regulate the use of guns, which is why you get a Lanza or a Mercer or a Holmes who everyone in their lives knew was batshit crazy but they were able to get a gun, anyway.
Click to expand...

https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download

Nope..........We don't have any gun regulations...........Not at all......tell me when you tire the nearly 250 pages there SPARKY.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Your spinnig it..........as always..............you can make the SAFEST CAR IN THE WORLD...........and you still can't control the driver......Your counter point is an abject FAILURE.............



I agree.  But you can license the driver, strictly police the areas where he can use his car, force him to purchase insurance, subject his vehicle to regular safety inspections and remove it from the road if it isn't safe.  Again, if you want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars, I' good with that.  Cars are very "Well-Regulated".  

"But, but, but, the Founding Slave Rapists said I could have a gun!!"  



eagle1462010 said:


> Saying we put safety into guns.........well most guns have a safety.............that doesn't stop it from going to fire and mowing down people when a psycho gets one............just the same as a psycho who runs over 20 kids by doing 80 mph in a school zone....



Right. So we should make sure a psycho NEVER GETS TO OWN A GUN.   But you don't get there if you say that every psycho has a God Given Right to own a gun granted by 200 year old Slave Rapists who shit in Chamber pots and thought they were all that.  

I'd have no problem with gun laws like Germany, where there s no "right" to own a gun, but gun ownership is allowed under very strict circumstances.   Oh, Germany only had 258 Gun murders compared to our 11,101.  They haven't had a mass shooting since 2009.  The one previous to that was in the 1980's. 



eagle1462010 said:


> You want to take the guns............you've admitted so in the past.........so you should want to OUTLAW cars by your own arguments.



If the Auto industry acted like the gun industry, I'd consider it.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.
> 
> Only 22% of households own guns.  Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use.  That's not the gun industries key market.  Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns.  The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.
Click to expand...







Gun control is you having the Bushmaster..........and I have the Remmington 40xbr in the woods..........hunting each other.......

The Bushmaster is only as good as the user............me and my simple gun, bolt action, against your extra rounds...........I'll take the bolt action..............

You want to ban all guns..............you have stated it in the past...........you will not stop at the Bushmaster............you will not stop until any weapons is illegal...

And I'M AGAINST YOU.......and this DUMB ASSED COURT RULING.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Nope..........We don't have any gun regulations...........Not at all......tell me when you tire the nearly 250 pages there SPARKY.



Did you have a point other than the one on the top of your head?

Adam lanza should have never had access to a gun. Period.  Maybe when we sue Bushmaster into the poorhouse, they'll chance their ways.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spinnig it..........as always..............you can make the SAFEST CAR IN THE WORLD...........and you still can't control the driver......Your counter point is an abject FAILURE.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can license the driver, strictly police the areas where he can use his car, force him to purchase insurance, subject his vehicle to regular safety inspections and remove it from the road if it isn't safe.  Again, if you want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars, I' good with that.  Cars are very "Well-Regulated".
> 
> "But, but, but, the Founding Slave Rapists said I could have a gun!!"
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying we put safety into guns.........well most guns have a safety.............that doesn't stop it from going to fire and mowing down people when a psycho gets one............just the same as a psycho who runs over 20 kids by doing 80 mph in a school zone....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. So we should make sure a psycho NEVER GETS TO OWN A GUN.   But you don't get there if you say that every psycho has a God Given Right to own a gun granted by 200 year old Slave Rapists who shit in Chamber pots and thought they were all that.
> 
> I'd have no problem with gun laws like Germany, where there s no "right" to own a gun, but gun ownership is allowed under very strict circumstances.   Oh, Germany only had 258 Gun murders compared to our 11,101.  They haven't had a mass shooting since 2009.  The one previous to that was in the 1980's.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take the guns............you've admitted so in the past.........so you should want to OUTLAW cars by your own arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Auto industry acted like the gun industry, I'd consider it.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah...........

Every nation that has banned guns has used your rhetoric to get FULL REGISTRATION.......because they need to know who's door to kick in to take the guns at a later date.............

Which is your aim.................YOUR GOAL...................Now they use this to SUE THE MANUFACTURERS and open up a legal nightmare that every time anyone gets shot with a gun you sue the gun manufacturers to try to put them out of business.........

Which should make your legs tingle...............not mine...........


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope..........We don't have any gun regulations...........Not at all......tell me when you tire the nearly 250 pages there SPARKY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have a point other than the one on the top of your head?
> 
> Adam lanza should have never had access to a gun. Period.  Maybe when we sue Bushmaster into the poorhouse, they'll chance their ways.
Click to expand...

You said we don't have gun regulations..........That post was to call YOU A LYING ASS............ 

Sum it up for you............


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza's mother was considered mentally unstable? Have any link to that?
> 
> As far as I remember, she was a legal gun owner; bought her guns from gun dealers in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she was a prepper... So yeah, she was nuts.
> 
> "State with the most restrictive gun laws" is like "Leper with the most fingers"
Click to expand...


An armchair psychiatrist I see.  You determined Lanza's mother to be unstable therefore she must have been. 

This is a prime example why the public shouldn't be allowed to say who is sane enough to own a gun and who isn't.  Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> You said we don't have gun regulations..........That post was to call YOU A LYING ASS............
> 
> Sum it up for you............



Go back and read what I actually said...  and then have someone explain the big words to you.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> An armchair psychiatrist I see. You determined Lanza's mother to be unstable therefore she must have been.



The woman had 8 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo.  She was prepping like the Zombies were coming.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> This is a prime example why the public shouldn't be allowed to say who is sane enough to own a gun and who isn't. Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable. She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him. The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him. Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.



Uh, yeah, somehow stockpiling your house with guns doesn't seem like a good idea when you have a violent anti-social person living there.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Again, have you looked at your avatar lately?



My avatar means I want to shoot people I don't like? 

That's the problem with you liberals, you make stuff up in your heads that never existed.  



JoeB131 said:


> Again, guy, if you think that anyone stable would think his manhood would be restored by owning a battlefield weapon, maybe you should look into your own mental stability.



When did I say that?  I asked how this ad was geared towards the mentally unstable?  The ad merely promoted power and nothing more. 



JoeB131 said:


> From what? Seriously, you gun nuts arm yourselves like the Zombie Apocalypse is about to break out next week, and then you wonder when some member of the club goes off the deep end.



From what?  From liberals, that's who.  

If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up.  Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that. 

Or if I go to my ATM at night.  I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things. 

So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first.  Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals.  Liberals are violent people you know.........


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said we don't have gun regulations..........That post was to call YOU A LYING ASS............
> 
> Sum it up for you............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read what I actually said...  and then have someone explain the big words to you.
Click to expand...

No I will not.  I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns.  That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.

I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way........

Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....

Which is why we need to win this election.

You gonna take away the cars of the ones not speeding now.

Are you going to deny that I just gave you a pdf on Gun regulations and laws that you say WE DIDN'T HAVE.............

SPIN AWAY Mr. Gun Grabber.


----------



## hjmick

easyt65 said:


> Victims of Drunk Driver accidents can / should be able to sue the maker of whatever alcohol the drunk driver was drinking...
> 
> ....after all, it was the booze's fault, right?!




Don't forget the automobile manufacturers...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> An armchair psychiatrist I see. You determined Lanza's mother to be unstable therefore she must have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman had 8 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo.  She was prepping like the Zombies were coming.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example why the public shouldn't be allowed to say who is sane enough to own a gun and who isn't. Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable. She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him. The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him. Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, somehow stockpiling your house with guns doesn't seem like a good idea when you have a violent anti-social person living there.
Click to expand...


I know a lot of people that stockpile ammo and have several guns, and they are more mentally stable than you are. 

In fact, I have over a thousand rounds in my home right now.  Why?  Because you get ammo cheaper when you buy quantity.  Also, guns don't come in one size, they come in different calibers.  What that means is they each take a different size of bullet.  If you like to save on ammo, and you have three or four different caliber of guns, sure, it's easy to understand why somebody would have several thousand rounds of ammo.


----------



## easyt65

If you like your ammo, you can keep your ammo...unless, of course, a liberal is in charge.


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> An armchair psychiatrist I see. You determined Lanza's mother to be unstable therefore she must have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman had 8 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo.  She was prepping like the Zombies were coming.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example why the public shouldn't be allowed to say who is sane enough to own a gun and who isn't. Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable. She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him. The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him. Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, somehow stockpiling your house with guns doesn't seem like a good idea when you have a violent anti-social person living there.
Click to expand...

Only 8? That's nothing, joe... 
Thousands? That's very average...
 You're just a little control freak living in his moms basement -


----------



## PredFan

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.
> 
> Only 22% of households own guns.  Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use.  That's not the gun industries key market.  Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns.  The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.
Click to expand...


100% bull shit. You left wing idiots spout the nonsense you are spoon fed, and expect everyone to believe it because you are stupid enough to. How you can be that stupid and still use a computer or similar device is a mystery.


----------



## PK1

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.


---
That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
.


----------



## PK1

ChrisL said:


> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!


---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
.


----------



## Rustic

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
Click to expand...

Firearms are as necessary as breathing...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

PK1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
> When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
> .
Click to expand...


A wake up call to what? 

All her firearms were legal and legally purchased. 
The state had strict firearm laws to purchase and own guns. 
Her guns were locked up in a gun cabinet which is why her son killed her--to get the keys. 

Other than not teaching her son about firearms, I don't know what else she could have done.  Guns are a dangerous product like poison, like knives, like electricity, like swimming pools, like cars........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
Click to expand...


Well.......I can send you a link to our local paper.  They have a police section in there that tells readers what the police were up to in the previous week.  Then you might be able to understand why people need guns.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

This shouldnt really come as a surprise.  This is, after all, liberal logic.


----------



## Iceweasel

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
Click to expand...

I oppose your right to drive since you may stupidly swerve into me. Turn in your keys NOW.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........



Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.
Click to expand...

Put up the link...........

Yeah.........we are all scared to death........shaking right now......Yawn......standard points bitch.............If I go into a bad area then I have no problem packing just in case.............because of common sense knowing the area I have to go to has crime................It's called common sense and SELF DEFENSE only if needed.......

POSTED WHILE HIDING UNDER BED LAYING IN MY..........you get the point Joe......Your FEAR FACTOR crap is getting old.


----------



## Timmy

Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.

But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way



You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument. 



eagle1462010 said:


> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....



Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.  

The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................

How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.


----------



## Dale Smith

ChrisL said:


> Oh come on!  Lol.  That is just way too far fetched.  Why is it hard for you to believe that the kid freaked and went and killed a bunch of kids because they were an easy target?  His mother also had worked at the school, I believe.
> 
> Sorry, but the official story makes more sense than the conspiracy theory.


 
Not far fetched at all . Look into Operation Gladio and what that was all about. They kept that secret for decades until it was De-classified. Google Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, etc, etc. All of those programs required secrecy with thousands involved and they have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Hell, even the people that bulldozed Sandy Hook had to sign non-disclosure agreements....why would that be?.False flags, lies, deceptions and psy-ops have been used on the common people for centuries.


----------



## bripat9643

Tipsycatlover said:


> They will lose.



Apparently the judge can't read federal law.


----------



## Iceweasel

Timmy said:


> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??


Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.
Click to expand...

Most of those deaths are suicides, moron.  

Close to 100,000 people die every year from alcohol related illness.  Why aren't you more concerned about people drinking?  

People use guns to protect themselves from crime 1 - 2 million times a year.  Many of those people could have been raped or killed.  You math doesn't include those figures.


----------



## SuperDemocrat

Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................
> 
> How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.



Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice.  Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.  Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers..  They never stood a fucking chance.  

Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts.   With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.


----------



## Timmy

Iceweasel said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.
Click to expand...


If it's frivolous it will be tossed out of court right away .


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> People use guns to protect themselves from crime 1 - 2 million times a year. Many of those people could have been raped or killed. You math doesn't include those figures.



Yes, my figures do not include Unicorn farts, either.  

DGU's are a lie.  They almost never happen.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?

We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.


----------



## Timmy

SuperDemocrat said:


> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.



People sue newspapers all the time .


----------



## easyt65

Timmy said:


> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??


Why?  Because without them Liberals would allow people to try to hold gun MAKERS accountable rather than the shooters.

The Obama administration gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels resulting in the deaths of innocents, to include 2 Americans. To apply this liberal logic to this case, it would be like allowing victims / families to sue the makers of all those guns instead of Obama and the dumasses who gave the cartels the guns or the cartels themselves.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's frivolous it will be tossed out of court right away .
Click to expand...


It will when it's appealed, or it won't if Hillary manages to get elected.


----------



## Timmy

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
Click to expand...


Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !


----------



## Iceweasel

Timmy said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a frivolous backhanded way to interfere with our rights? If they could they would sue every firearms manufacturer under.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's frivolous it will be tossed out of court right away .
Click to expand...

Not if the judge is a progressive activist.


----------



## JoeB131

Dale Smith said:


> Not far fetched at all . Look into Operation Gladio and what that was all about. They kept that secret for decades until it was De-classified. Google Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, etc, etc. All of those programs required secrecy with thousands involved and they have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Hell, even the people that bulldozed Sandy Hook had to sign non-disclosure agreements....why would that be?.False flags, lies, deceptions and psy-ops have been used on the common people for centuries.



They had to sign non-disclosure agreements so they wouldn't sell stuff from Sandy Hook on Ebay. (Yes, that's the kind of society we live in.) 

Hey, Ray, I think we found a guy who is just slightly crazier than you are.


----------



## Iceweasel

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !
Click to expand...

If they misuse it. Like backing over your kid in the driveway with your car. Ford isn't responsible.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................
> 
> How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice.  Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.  Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers..  They never stood a fucking chance.
> 
> Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts.   With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.
Click to expand...


Poison is a dangerous product.  You can walk into any hardware store and buy Strychnine.  thousands of people are poisoned every year.  When are you going to demand that poison be outlawed?


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
Click to expand...


For slander.  They don't sue newspapers who glorified some mass shooter and thereby encouraged other kooks to imitate his actions.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................
> 
> How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice.  Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.  Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers..  They never stood a fucking chance.
> 
> Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts.   With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.
Click to expand...



And it wasn't the guns fault.  You're a perfect example of liberal logic.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.
Click to expand...



99 percent of which are committed by felons, criminals, etc.  We know...you're afraid of guns, afraid to lay the blame where it belongs, and take the easy way out.


----------



## westwall

ChrisL said:


> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.








Hell, someone uses a car to take them to a place where they kill someone.  They wouldn't have been able to get there were it not for the car.  Thus the car manufacturer is to blame as well.  This is all part of the strategy to so completely wrap this country up in knots that it can't function anymore.  Useful idiots are setting this country up for an epic fall.  My only hope is that they are among the first that get put up against the wall.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !
Click to expand...


And people drown in their own backyard pools all the time too.  Are the pool manufacturers responsible?


----------



## bripat9643

LordBrownTrout said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 99 percent of which are committed by felons, criminals, etc.  We know...you're afraid of guns, afraid to lay the blame where it belongs, and take the easy way out.
Click to expand...


Most killing are committed by gang members.  They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
Click to expand...

Meekly hand them over?

I don't think so.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................
> 
> How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice.  Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.  Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers..  They never stood a fucking chance.
> 
> Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts.   With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.
Click to expand...


There are millions of products sold that are "dangerous" and they don't require any background checks at all, and owning any of them is not even a constitutional right.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meekly hand them over?
> 
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...



Yeah, I thought that was hilarious.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.
Click to expand...


You are the only one who is fearful.  That is obviously by your panty pooping posts about guns.  Your chances of being hit and killed by a drunk driver are MUCH higher.  Shall we start suing the alcohol manufacturers?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................
> 
> How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice.  Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.  Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers..  They never stood a fucking chance.
> 
> Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts.   With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of products sold that are "dangerous" and they don't require any background checks at all, and owning any of them is not even a constitutional right.
Click to expand...



Uncle joe hates guns and the constitution.  His vision is a stalinistic gulag authoriatarian state killing it citizens approach.


----------



## ChrisL

Joe, you are the utmost moron that I have ever encountered.


----------



## Dale Smith

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not far fetched at all . Look into Operation Gladio and what that was all about. They kept that secret for decades until it was De-classified. Google Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, etc, etc. All of those programs required secrecy with thousands involved and they have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Hell, even the people that bulldozed Sandy Hook had to sign non-disclosure agreements....why would that be?.False flags, lies, deceptions and psy-ops have been used on the common people for centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had to sign non-disclosure agreements so they wouldn't sell stuff from Sandy Hook on Ebay. (Yes, that's the kind of society we live in.)
> 
> Hey, Ray, I think we found a guy who is just slightly crazier than you are.
Click to expand...


Non-disclosure that they would not say what they had seen or had not seen. I am always amused by people like you that just assume that everything they see on TV is reality. I am also amused by people that haven't done 10 minutes of research and reading that lamely attempt to marginalize someone that has spent hundreds and hundreds of hours looking for documentation and information both pro and con. I believed that it actually happened at first and I was going to try and prove the trolls wrong. But the more I looked into this, the more questions than answers was all I found. You believe that your beloved "gubermint" would never lie to you and that is fine....but I know that they lie with impunity and often with great gusto.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??



What special laws are those?  Do we sue the makers of alcohol when a drunk driver kills someone?  What about cigarette manufacturers?  How many die from smoking cigarettes?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

LordBrownTrout said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meekly hand them over?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought that was hilarious.
Click to expand...

So did I.

Thinking we will willingly disarm ourselves. 

The outrage would be swift and the military force would have to be brought down on the populous.

I don't see it happening.

I'm not letting go that easily.


----------



## bripat9643

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meekly hand them over?
> 
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, I'm probably going to buy some guns as a result of all this idiocy.  I haven't owned a gun for about 10 years, but I see a time in the future when the Stalinists among us will win the battle against freedom.  I plan on taking down as many of them as possible before they pack me off to the Gulag.


----------



## ChrisL

Cigarettes, which contain KNOWN carcinogens that give people cancer and other ingredients that cause illness and death, yet those are still perfectly legal.  Alcohol, which is literally a poison and kills millions of people and it is still legal.


----------



## ChrisL

Joe always participates in gun threads only to get his stupid arse handed to him on a platter.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza's mother was considered mentally unstable? Have any link to that?
> 
> As far as I remember, she was a legal gun owner; bought her guns from gun dealers in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she was a prepper... So yeah, she was nuts.
> 
> "State with the most restrictive gun laws" is like "Leper with the most fingers"
Click to expand...

I'm prepared for floods, earthquakes, power outages and potential extreme emergencies.

I'm also prepared to feed my family. By using a firearm.

So being prepared makes you a nut?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spinnig it..........as always..............you can make the SAFEST CAR IN THE WORLD...........and you still can't control the driver......Your counter point is an abject FAILURE.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can license the driver, strictly police the areas where he can use his car, force him to purchase insurance, subject his vehicle to regular safety inspections and remove it from the road if it isn't safe.  Again, if you want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars, I' good with that.  Cars are very "Well-Regulated".
> 
> "But, but, but, the Founding Slave Rapists said I could have a gun!!"
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying we put safety into guns.........well most guns have a safety.............that doesn't stop it from going to fire and mowing down people when a psycho gets one............just the same as a psycho who runs over 20 kids by doing 80 mph in a school zone....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. So we should make sure a psycho NEVER GETS TO OWN A GUN.   But you don't get there if you say that every psycho has a God Given Right to own a gun granted by 200 year old Slave Rapists who shit in Chamber pots and thought they were all that.
> 
> I'd have no problem with gun laws like Germany, where there s no "right" to own a gun, but gun ownership is allowed under very strict circumstances.   Oh, Germany only had 258 Gun murders compared to our 11,101.  They haven't had a mass shooting since 2009.  The one previous to that was in the 1980's.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take the guns............you've admitted so in the past.........so you should want to OUTLAW cars by your own arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Auto industry acted like the gun industry, I'd consider it.
Click to expand...

No. The founding slave racists said you couldn't take my gu..firearms.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meekly hand them over?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I'm probably going to buy some guns as a result of all this idiocy.  I haven't owned a gun for about 10 years, but I see a time in the future when the Stalinists among us will win the battle against freedom.  I plan on taking down as many of them as possible before they pack me off to the Gulag.
Click to expand...


You still have time. 

If Trump wins the election, you probably don't have to worry. If Hillary wins, you can kiss your guns goodbye.


----------



## ChrisL

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza's mother was considered mentally unstable? Have any link to that?
> 
> As far as I remember, she was a legal gun owner; bought her guns from gun dealers in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she was a prepper... So yeah, she was nuts.
> 
> "State with the most restrictive gun laws" is like "Leper with the most fingers"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm prepared for floods, earthquakes, power outages and potential extreme emergencies.
> 
> I'm also prepared to feed my family. By using a firearm.
> 
> So being prepared makes you a nut?
Click to expand...


Just don't let Joe in if the time comes.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## Yousaidwhat

PK1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
> When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
> .
Click to expand...

That fascination was not hers. She should have secured her weapons. Or just maybe secured her offspring.


----------



## ChrisL

Yousaidwhat said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
> When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That fascination was not hers. She should have secured her weapons. Or just maybe secured her offspring.
Click to expand...


That boy obviously needed psychiatric therapy.  Mental illness is to blame, not his choice of a tool to accomplish his sick goals.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

ChrisL said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza's mother was considered mentally unstable? Have any link to that?
> 
> As far as I remember, she was a legal gun owner; bought her guns from gun dealers in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she was a prepper... So yeah, she was nuts.
> 
> "State with the most restrictive gun laws" is like "Leper with the most fingers"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm prepared for floods, earthquakes, power outages and potential extreme emergencies.
> 
> I'm also prepared to feed my family. By using a firearm.
> 
> So being prepared makes you a nut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just don't let Joe in if the time comes.  Lol.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with the Joe's of this world.

Change the Constitution and the laws and I'm not giving them up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not far fetched at all . Look into Operation Gladio and what that was all about. They kept that secret for decades until it was De-classified. Google Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, etc, etc. All of those programs required secrecy with thousands involved and they have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Hell, even the people that bulldozed Sandy Hook had to sign non-disclosure agreements....why would that be?.False flags, lies, deceptions and psy-ops have been used on the common people for centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had to sign non-disclosure agreements so they wouldn't sell stuff from Sandy Hook on Ebay. (Yes, that's the kind of society we live in.)
> 
> Hey, Ray, I think we found a guy who is just slightly crazier than you are.
Click to expand...



Good for you Joe, now you've finally accomplished something here.


----------



## ChrisL

You know that Joe doesn't care about people's lives.  His "concern" is strictly politically motivated.  Notice he doesn't go off the rails about other deaths . . . 

Every day, *28 people* in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 53 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion.


----------



## ChrisL

Why is Joe not DEMANDING that alcohol be banned?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

easyt65 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because without them Liberals would allow people to try to hold gun MAKERS accountable rather than the shooters.
> 
> The Obama administration gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels resulting in the deaths of innocents, to include 2 Americans. To apply this liberal logic to this case, it would be like allowing victims / families to sue the makers of all those guns instead of Obama and the dumasses who gave the cartels the guns or the cartels themselves.
Click to expand...


And let's not forget the hundreds of drug heads he let out of prison too.  I wonder how many of those people are going to lead a clean and decent live, or will sell drugs killing more people instead?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Timmy said:


> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??


Special laws?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
Click to expand...


Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.


----------



## ChrisL

How about the manufacturer's of donuts?  Completely empty calories, which contribute to heart disease, high cholesterol, and obesity.  Heart disease is the number 1 killer here in the United States.  I guess we should start suing the people who make the donuts.


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
Click to expand...


Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !
Click to expand...

My heart bleeds.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?
Click to expand...


Should the families of those hit and killed by drunk drivers be able to sue the alcohol companies?  Yes or no.


----------



## Timmy

ChrisL said:


> Why is Joe not DEMANDING that alcohol be banned?



Are u saying we don't regulate alcohol?  Cause we do.

And you can use a bar for overserving a drunk who then kills someone in a car accident .  

But gun companies get special protection??


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?
Click to expand...


It's not the gun manufacturer's fault if a person intentionally misuses their product.  The product was not "defective."  The person using it was.


----------



## westwall

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?
Click to expand...








How about the builders of the school?  Had it not been for the school being there the asshole wouldn't have had such a target rich environment.   Heck.  I think they should sue all of the taxpayers of the State.  It is their fault that the building was funded in the first place.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Joe not DEMANDING that alcohol be banned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are u saying we don't regulate alcohol?  Cause we do.
> 
> And you can use a bar for overserving a drunk who then kills someone in a car accident .
> 
> But gun companies get special protection??
Click to expand...


Due we sue the alcohol manufacturers when someone is killed by a drunk driver?  Answer the question.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go to my convenient store at night, I'm not afraid of some Republican coming in there and holding the place up. Republicans don't do that--Democrats do that.
> 
> Or if I go to my ATM at night. I'm not worried about an armed conservative squeezing in between my car and the machine, then demanding I withdraw all my money for him to take. No,no,no, conservatives don't do those types of things--liberals do those types of things.
> 
> So you see, the only possible way for us to get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. Since that's not going to happen (Lord knows we've tried) then we need to arm ourselves against liberals. Liberals are violent people you know.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know you live in pant-shitting fear of the scary negroes.  We get that, guy.  Unfortunately, the cost of your fear is 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries every year, and frankly, that's too high a price to pay because you are scared.
Click to expand...


Well without guns, imagine how many more gun deaths we would have since the criminal would know we are all victims.  You liberals really believe that if we make more gun laws, magically, the criminals would no longer be able to get them.  It's a fantasy world that you live in.


----------



## ChrisL

Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Joe not DEMANDING that alcohol be banned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are u saying we don't regulate alcohol?  Cause we do.
> 
> And you can use a bar for overserving a drunk who then kills someone in a car accident .
> 
> But gun companies get special protection??
Click to expand...


What do you think is more regulated, guns or alcohol?


----------



## Timmy

ChrisL said:


> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?



I'm sure people have .

The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.

But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?
Click to expand...


If we let liberals get their way, that won't be too far down the road. 

Guns are made to shoot things, that's all they are made for.  The gun manufacturer produced a product that is legal and did what it's supposed to do.  How can you blame them for anything?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meekly hand them over?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I'm probably going to buy some guns as a result of all this idiocy.  I haven't owned a gun for about 10 years, but I see a time in the future when the Stalinists among us will win the battle against freedom.  I plan on taking down as many of them as possible before they pack me off to the Gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have time.
> 
> If Trump wins the election, you probably don't have to worry. If Hillary wins, you can kiss your guns goodbye.
Click to expand...


When she pries them from my cold dead fingers.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
Click to expand...


Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.  

I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?


----------



## westwall

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
Click to expand...








Nope.  Not one.   And no they don't.  There is no legal precedent anywhere in the world for suing a manufacturer for the criminal misuse of their product.  It was tried in Israel a few years back but the judge there rightfully reasoned that to allow such a abuse of the legal system would lead to the collapse of that legal system and ultimately the social fabric of the country.

So, if your goal is to cause the destruction of the legal system, congrats.  You are well on your way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
Click to expand...


How are companies marketing their product?  Do you see gun billboards on the highway?  Do you see gun commercials on your television or on the radio?  

The only people that are subject to gun advertising are those who are in the NRA, deal with a gun shop, or register their firearm with the manufacturer.  Other than that, there is no gun advertising in this country.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

ChrisL said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza's mother was considered mentally unstable? Have any link to that?
> 
> As far as I remember, she was a legal gun owner; bought her guns from gun dealers in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she was a prepper... So yeah, she was nuts.
> 
> "State with the most restrictive gun laws" is like "Leper with the most fingers"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm prepared for floods, earthquakes, power outages and potential extreme emergencies.
> 
> I'm also prepared to feed my family. By using a firearm.
> 
> So being prepared makes you a nut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just don't let Joe in if the time comes.  Lol.
Click to expand...

He lacks cojones


----------



## ChrisL

The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.


----------



## Timmy

ChrisL said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
Click to expand...


Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!


----------



## Timmy

ChrisL said:


> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.



So they lose their suit.  What are u bitching about ?


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
Click to expand...


So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## ChrisL

westwall said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the builders of the school?  Had it not been for the school being there the asshole wouldn't have had such a target rich environment.   Heck.  I think they should sue all of the taxpayers of the State.  It is their fault that the building was funded in the first place.
Click to expand...


How about the fact that schools are "advertised" as gun free zones, which would attract these loons to begin with?  Talk about advertising that you have a bunch of defenseless sitting ducks.


----------



## eagle1462010

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
Click to expand...

Yeah............you have to buy them first............you gonna outlaw the mags too..................


----------



## Timmy

ChrisL said:


> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.



If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?
Click to expand...


Oh, picking on a dead lady.  Real classy.  

Answer my questions first.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
Click to expand...

If someone drowns in my pool and I am found negligent or reckless then yes there is a valid lawsuit.

When I put the pool in I had to install a fence around the pool or the property. Both were installed. 

If you enter my property and drown in my pool without my consent I cannot be held accountable.

If you break into my home and steal my gun and use it to commit a crime how are either I or the manufacturer culpable?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?
Click to expand...

No respect for the dead.


----------



## ChrisL

Notice how they flee when asked valid questions?  Take note how they avoid answering questions.


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the builders of the school?  Had it not been for the school being there the asshole wouldn't have had such a target rich environment.   Heck.  I think they should sue all of the taxpayers of the State.  It is their fault that the building was funded in the first place.
Click to expand...


They should be sued for making it a gun-free zone and turning all the students into targets.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?
Click to expand...


Why don't you just admit that you don't care about the "dead children"?  If you did, you would be demanding that bans be put on alcohol and drugs.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
Click to expand...


Because we know how scumbags like you operate.  You will use the courts to sue the gun manufacturers into bankruptcy thereby depriving us of our 2nd Amendment rights.  

Do you actually expect us to treat douche bags like you as if you were decent honorable people?


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
Click to expand...


That's "ads" you dummy.  Lol.


----------



## Desperado

More Political Correctness from the Obama Administration.
There was no malfunction with the guns, The guns performed as advertised.
Therefor there is no reason to sue the gun manufacturers.  It would be like the families of drunk driving victims being able to sue the car manufacturers,
The families can sue the shooter but most of the time they don't have the deep pockets like the manufacturers do.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

ChrisL said:


> Notice how they flee when asked valid questions?  Take note how they avoid answering questions.



Duly noted.


----------



## westwall

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
Click to expand...







Ever look in Newsweek?  Do they have gun adds?  No?  There sure are a lot of alcohol adds.


----------



## Timmy

ChrisL said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


Anti rights ?!   I'm pro rights .  Pro people being able to take their claims to court without having congress issue protection for thier pet industry .


----------



## westwall

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti rights ?!   I'm pro rights .  Pro people being able to take their claims to court without having congress issue protection for thier pet industry .
Click to expand...










No, you're not.  You are anti freedom based on your desire to see the legal system fucked up beyond recognition with a bunch of stupid lawsuits.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Oh. Do you mean the abortion lobby?


----------



## Timmy

ChrisL said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


I'm sure people have .  Alcholhol companies get shit all the time for marketing to underage people .


----------



## Timmy

westwall said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever look in Newsweek?  Do they have gun adds?  No?  There sure are a lot of alcohol adds.
Click to expand...


Yes or no, do gun mags have adds?? 

Cause yall flapped you mouths that gun makers don't advertise .  Now all of a sudden it's "Newsweek ".

Who's the one avoiding questions ????


----------



## Clementine

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......




A company is only liable if the product harms while used as intended.    No gun manufacturer ever suggested that people murder.   Of course, we have nutjobs, like Sharpton, believing that white people should never shoot blacks even if it's clearly self-defense.    

This is a bold attempt to put the gun industry out of business.   It's illegal, immoral and typical leftwing tactics.

I supposed the families of 9/11 can sue the airline now.     That won't happen any more than knife companies or auto companies will ever be held liable for deaths.   

It's a problem with peoples' minds.    The left is never interested in getting to the core of the problem.   They love problems that they can offer their controlling solutions to solve.    Violent people will always walk the earth.    If liberals get their way, we will all be at the mercy of those without hearts or a conscience.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti rights ?!   I'm pro rights .  Pro people being able to take their claims to court without having congress issue protection for thier pet industry .
Click to expand...


There is no "special protections."  Just like any other industry if the product is DEFECTIVE, then a lawsuit can be brought.  If a person intentionally misuses the product, then there is no lawsuit.  

You still haven't answered my direct question to you.  So, if someone drinks and drives and kills someone, should the car manufacturers and the alcohol manufacturers be sued?


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever look in Newsweek?  Do they have gun adds?  No?  There sure are a lot of alcohol adds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes or no, do gun mags have adds??
> 
> Cause yall flapped you mouths that gun makers don't advertise .  Now all of a sudden it's "Newsweek ".
> 
> Who's the one avoiding questions ????
Click to expand...


You are the one avoiding questions.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .  Alcholhol companies get shit all the time for marketing to underage people .
Click to expand...


You need to learn how to spell, first of all, tiny Timmy.


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever look in Newsweek?  Do they have gun adds?  No?  There sure are a lot of alcohol adds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes or no, do gun mags have adds??
> 
> Cause yall flapped you mouths that gun makers don't advertise .  Now all of a sudden it's "Newsweek ".
> 
> Who's the one avoiding questions ????
Click to expand...


No, they don't have "adds."


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti rights ?!   I'm pro rights .  Pro people being able to take their claims to court without having congress issue protection for thier pet industry .
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

Timmy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever look in Newsweek?  Do they have gun adds?  No?  There sure are a lot of alcohol adds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes or no, do gun mags have adds??
> 
> Cause yall flapped you mouths that gun makers don't advertise .  Now all of a sudden it's "Newsweek ".
> 
> Who's the one avoiding questions ????
Click to expand...








Hmmm, let me see.  Does a magazine dedicated to the shooting interests have gun maker advertisements.  Why yes, yes it does.  A FOCUSED periodical does indeed have ads for those who want to learn about guns.  Now, riddle me this simpleton.  Are there gun advertisements in any mainstream media outlet?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ChrisL said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti rights ?!   I'm pro rights .  Pro people being able to take their claims to court without having congress issue protection for thier pet industry .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .  Alcholhol companies get shit all the time for marketing to underage people .
Click to expand...


Alcohol companies market to underage people?  Can you show me one of those advertisements?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?
Click to expand...


Face charges for what, getting shot and having her keys stolen from her so her son could gain access to her secured firearms?


----------



## ChrisL

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face charges for what, getting shot and getting her keys stolen from her so her son could gain access to her secured firearms?
Click to expand...


It's obvious that they don't care about deaths.  The goal is to take away our rights.  They are traitors.  

Funny how they want to go light on the real dangerous people (criminals) and want to take rights away from the law abiding, or how they defend the Obama administration for "losing" a whole cache of weapons to Mexican drug cartels and also defend Obama for arming people in the ME.  Lol.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
Click to expand...


Yes they have ads.  The are advertising to people that have an interest in guns--not to the general public.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ChrisL said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face charges for what, getting shot and getting her keys stolen from her so her son could gain access to her secured firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that they don't care about deaths.  The goal is to take away our rights.  They are traitors.
> 
> Funny how they want to go light on the real dangerous people (criminals) and want to take rights away from the law abiding, or how they defend the Obama administration for "losing" a whole cache of weapons to Mexican drug cartels and also defend Obama for arming people in the ME.  Lol.
Click to expand...


Liberals will use anybody and anything to get their way,  children no exception.  Never let a good tragedy go to waste as they say.


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## Timmy

So they do have ads . We've cleared that up and I was right .

And no I don't think gun companies are liable for making guns .

No I do t think that just producing alcohol makes you liable for drunk drivers . 

And I don't respect a dead lady who bought her psycho son all kinds a guns and took him shooting n shit.

You didn't answer my question on if she was in any way responsible .


----------



## Timmy

Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.

Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do alcohol companies.  Alcohol is a killer and not a constitutional right.  I notice that you avoid my direct questions and try to gloss over them.  You are very transparent, anti-rights SOB.  You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti rights ?!   I'm pro rights .  Pro people being able to take their claims to court without having congress issue protection for thier pet industry .
Click to expand...


You're obviously opposed to Second Amendment rights.  That's why you want to make it possible to sue gun manufacturers into bankruptcy for something they aren't responsible for.

We all know how the court system works.  Anyone who insists it's a system of justice is obviously an imbecile.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> So they do have ads . We've cleared that up and I was right .
> 
> And no I don't think gun companies are liable for making guns .
> 
> No I do t think that just producing alcohol makes you liable for drunk drivers .
> 
> And I don't respect a dead lady who bought her psycho son all kinds a guns and took him shooting n shit.
> 
> You didn't answer my question on if she was in any way responsible .



You just admitted you're a scathing hypocrite, so why do you bother continuing this line of argument?


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)



So?


----------



## Contumacious

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......





This is pure harrassment of Remington Arms


The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that the *"Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903*" is Constitutional . So I fail to see the reason the scumbag "judge" is going to force Remington Arms to waste money defending itself.

*Rodriguez v. Testa, 993 A.2d 955, 296 Conn. 1 (Conn. 05/04/2010)*


*Any ruling concluding that the governments can designate what firearms can be marketed to civilians  will be IGNORED.


.*


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

What if...


----------



## bripat9643

ThoughtCrimes said:


> What if...



What form would this defense take, shooting up Congress?


----------



## Harry Dresden

ChrisL said:


> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.


what about skinny people who have it?.....


----------



## Kondor3

Based on what (very) little that I understand of the case so far, the families have absolutely zero hope for a legal victory... zero.

The plaintiffs' attorneys appear to be feeding on the emotions and grief of the families and holding out the prospect of victories that have no chance of materializing.


----------



## bripat9643

Harry Dresden said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
Click to expand...

Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.


----------



## Harry Dresden

bripat9643 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
Click to expand...

and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

bripat9643 said:


> What form would this defense take, shooting up Congress?


Damn, but you're an IDIOT! Learn to think before you put fingers to keyboard, fool!


----------



## turtledude

The sandy hook pawns-er parents-suing Bushmaster need to be bankrupted by the court for filing such a moronic law suit and their attorneys need to be destroyed with massive fines as well. The idiot judge who allowed that suit to go forward did so because that twit said there is a "question of fact" as to whether a legal product is legal.  She should be run out of office and disbarred


----------



## turtledude

Timmy said:


> Anti rights ?!   I'm pro rights .  Pro people being able to take their claims to court without having congress issue protection for thier pet industry .



No you aren't  the people who filed the suits need to be economically obliterated for filing such a specious law suit


----------



## whitehall

What makes a "superior"court judge" superior? There were about 35,000 automobile related deaths in the U.S. last year. Can we sue Ford for making a product that is driven by maniacs who kill somebody while they are are high on drugs or booze? Common sense tells us that people like "superior court" judges can lobby congress to declare a product illegal but they can't hold a company responsible for the misuse of a legally manufactured product.When you consider that Barry Hussein's attorney general once warned Americans that the entire might of the federal government would come down on any citizen who insulted a muslem how can you take the administration seriously?


----------



## bripat9643

ThoughtCrimes said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What form would this defense take, shooting up Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, but you're an IDIOT! Learn to think before you put fingers to keyboard, fool!
Click to expand...


I asked a simple question:  how would women use guns to defend their reproductive rights?


----------



## Coyote

No.  As long as the gun was functioning properly why should they be allowed to?  Can victims of drunk drivers sue car manufacturers?

No.


----------



## Rustic

Timmy said:


> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)


That is not a military grade firearm. Dumbass


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

easyt65 said:


> Liberal justification:
> 
> Years ago, during the infamous LA riots, a black mob pulled a white truck driver out of the cab of his truck at a blocked intersection and beat the man. One particular black rioter was on camera picking up a brick, smashiing it down on the driver's head, and dancing around the nearly unconscious man..
> 
> This individual was eventually arrested and charge with attempted murder. He was not convicted, the case / charge was thrown out because - NO $HIT - they decided a BRICK was not a 'weapon', that it was 'construction material', and thus - not being a 'weapon', like a gun or knife, the infividual could / not be charged with attempted murder. This PO$ WALKED!
> 
> WTF?!



Got a link to that?  I think you are in error.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Iceweasel said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......
> 
> 
> 
> Shells don't eject into your face with any regularity, who could sell such a gun? I did have a .45acp round hit my forehead once, but only once. Were you doing the gansta sideways shooting?
> 
> Lanza used a handgun, not the AR. Yes, you can put a semi-auto round through your skull, why wouldn't you be able to?
> 
> As far as the OP, I believe the suit would only apply to Connecticut manufacturer, like Bushmaster (last I heard). Many of them are fleeing the north due to this sort of hostility. I don't see how a Connecticut ruling could effect another state. But as said, the suit will be a big loser for the idiots, the weapon, even if used, wasn't defective.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !
Click to expand...


Only an idiot can shoot themselves.


----------



## turtledude

ThoughtCrimes said:


> What if...


Banoid "thinking" is pretty pathetic,  this is the nadir of it.


----------



## turtledude

the people who voted yes are the usual collection of banoid idiots 

btw they are actually correct in the sense that yes, idiots can use the firearms makers but 
the real answer is-no the morons who filed the suits cannot win.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
Click to expand...


No, but they do have subtractions.  That's the opposite of "adds", isn't it?[/sarcasm]

Who forced you to look at that gun magazine?


----------



## Clementine

If liberals really believed that their gun control worked-


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

SassyIrishLass said:


> The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal



No.  The judge who hears the case will throw it out if they can read.  The decision was to allow the case to go to trial, that is the stupid part. It will be a defense attorneys first motion to request summary judgement based on the federal law.


----------



## Dale Smith

No one was killed at Sandy Hook...and if anyone pursues a court case against the gun makers from Sandy Hoax???? They better be ready for "discovery" where everything has to be revealed including the info that they have been refusing to release under the FOIA. I would LOVE to be apart of the defense team for the gun manufacturers.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> Most killing are committed by gang members. They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.



We have 16,000 homicides a year in this country, of which only 1800 a year a gang related.   Most of the rest are domestic arguments that got out of hand.


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.


Who do you sue if a guy beats someone to death with his fists?


----------



## JoeB131

Dale Smith said:


> [
> Non-disclosure that they would not say what they had seen or had not seen. I am always amused by people like you that just assume that everything they see on TV is reality. I am also amused by people that haven't done 10 minutes of research and reading that lamely attempt to marginalize someone that has spent hundreds and hundreds of hours looking for documentation and information both pro and con. I believed that it actually happened at first and I was going to try and prove the trolls wrong. But the more I looked into this, the more questions than answers was all I found. You believe that your beloved "gubermint" would never lie to you and that is fine....but I know that they lie with impunity and often with great gusto.



You can't fix crazy, dude.  I've dealt with all sorts of nuts on the internet. JFK conspiracy theorists, 9/11 Truthers, Waco Nuts, Birthers, not to mention whacks who think things about Aliens and Chem Trails.  And usually you documentation and information is repeating what other nuts have posted or reposted on the internet.


----------



## JoeB131

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The judge who hears the case will throw it out if they can read.  The decision was to allow the case to go to trial, that is the stupid part. It will be a defense attorneys first motion to request summary judgement based on the federal law.
Click to expand...


Again, the courts can rule the federal law unconstitutional.  Granting a blanket immunity for an industry is insane.

So let's consider what will happen if the plaintiffs DO prevail here.  Bushmaster will pay out a shitload of money.  Then a lot of other people will sue other gun companies for their lost loved ones, and the gun industry will settle a lot of those out of court because they'd be too expensive to litigate.  

THEN you will see the gun industry clean up its act.  They'll be the ones driving comprehensive background checks for buyers and sellers. 

Can't see this as a bad thing.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Cigarettes, which contain KNOWN carcinogens that give people cancer and other ingredients that cause illness and death, yet those are still perfectly legal.  Alcohol, which is literally a poison and kills millions of people and it is still legal.



Yes, you did hear about the tobacco settlement,right?  The one where the tobacco companies paid  billions of dollars to the states and now have to support anti-smoking plans?  Or that the Alcohol industry has to put disclaimers on their products to "Drink responsibly" and discourage pregnant women and drunk drivers?  If you want to apply that standard to the gun industry, I'm good with that.


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> No. The founding slave racists said you couldn't take my gu..firearms.



no, the Founding Slave Rapists said your state could have a well-regulated militia.  I know you guys get confused on this point.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cigarettes, which contain KNOWN carcinogens that give people cancer and other ingredients that cause illness and death, yet those are still perfectly legal.  Alcohol, which is literally a poison and kills millions of people and it is still legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you did hear about the tobacco settlement,right?  The one where the tobacco companies paid  billions of dollars to the states and now have to support anti-smoking plans?  Or that the Alcohol industry has to put disclaimers on their products to "Drink responsibly" and discourage pregnant women and drunk drivers?  If you want to apply that standard to the gun industry, I'm good with that.
Click to expand...


Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The judge who hears the case will throw it out if they can read.  The decision was to allow the case to go to trial, that is the stupid part. It will be a defense attorneys first motion to request summary judgement based on the federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the courts can rule the federal law unconstitutional.  Granting a blanket immunity for an industry is insane.
> 
> So let's consider what will happen if the plaintiffs DO prevail here.  Bushmaster will pay out a shitload of money.  Then a lot of other people will sue other gun companies for their lost loved ones, and the gun industry will settle a lot of those out of court because they'd be too expensive to litigate.
> 
> THEN you will see the gun industry clean up its act.  They'll be the ones driving comprehensive background checks for buyers and sellers.
> 
> Can't see this as a bad thing.
Click to expand...


You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing?  Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next.  Who would you like to live in a dry country????


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> You know that Joe doesn't care about people's lives. His "concern" is strictly politically motivated. Notice he doesn't go off the rails about other deaths . . .
> 
> Every day, *28 people* in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 53 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion.



Okay, let's look at that.  We have thousands of police officers engaged in enforcing DUI Laws.  We have laws like BASSETT, which train bartenders to recognize when a patron is intoxicated to the point of impairment. We have the alcohol companies themselves spending billions of dollars to tell us to use their products responsibly.  None of this was done out of the goodness of anyone's hearts. It was done when enough people got sued. 

Now, we could do something like mandate that every car be equipped with a blow-meter as standard equipment.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.



Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know that Joe doesn't care about people's lives. His "concern" is strictly politically motivated. Notice he doesn't go off the rails about other deaths . . .
> 
> Every day, *28 people* in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 53 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's look at that.  We have thousands of police officers engaged in enforcing DUI Laws.  We have laws like BASSETT, which train bartenders to recognize when a patron is intoxicated to the point of impairment. We have the alcohol companies themselves spending billions of dollars to tell us to use their products responsibly.  None of this was done out of the goodness of anyone's hearts. It was done when enough people got sued.
> 
> Now, we could do something like mandate that every car be equipped with a blow-meter as standard equipment.
Click to expand...


You must really cry in joy ever time you read the book 1984, don't you??????


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The founding slave racists said you couldn't take my gu..firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, the Founding Slave Rapists said your state could have a well-regulated militia.  I know you guys get confused on this point.
Click to expand...

And?

The majority of those who own firearms have served or are serving in the military. Your "well regulated militia."

My firearms are tools. They cannot fire themselves.

You can't have them. Got balls enough to come and get them?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????



again, the Alcohol companies aren't in any real danger because they are responsible corporate citizens.  The gun industry is in the crosshairs because they are manifestly irresponsible.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
Click to expand...


Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns?  She wasn't a criminal either.  

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You must really cry in joy ever time you read the book 1984, don't you??????



The only think that made me cry was we had to read that crap in Senior Year English.  What a shitty book.


----------



## xband

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know that Joe doesn't care about people's lives. His "concern" is strictly politically motivated. Notice he doesn't go off the rails about other deaths . . .
> 
> Every day, *28 people* in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 53 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's look at that.  We have thousands of police officers engaged in enforcing DUI Laws.  We have laws like BASSETT, which train bartenders to recognize when a patron is intoxicated to the point of impairment. We have the alcohol companies themselves spending billions of dollars to tell us to use their products responsibly.  None of this was done out of the goodness of anyone's hearts. It was done when enough people got sued.
> 
> Now, we could do something like mandate that every car be equipped with a blow-meter as standard equipment.
Click to expand...


Not that long ago a MADD executive was caught drunk driving in Florida. I hate hypocrisy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, the Alcohol companies aren't in any real danger because they are responsible corporate citizens.  The gun industry is in the crosshairs because they are manifestly irresponsible.
Click to expand...


Irresponsible?  In what way???  What has the gun industry done illegal or wrong?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most killing are committed by gang members. They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 16,000 homicides a year in this country, of which only 1800 a year a gang related.   Most of the rest are domestic arguments that got out of hand.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with "MY" firearms?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must really cry in joy ever time you read the book 1984, don't you??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only think that made me cry was we had to read that crap in Senior Year English.  What a shitty book.
Click to expand...


Why do you feel that way?  This is the way you and your ilk would love to see the United States; at least you are taking steps to get there.......


----------



## Skull Pilot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, the Alcohol companies aren't in any real danger because they are responsible corporate citizens.  The gun industry is in the crosshairs because they are manifestly irresponsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irresponsible?  In what way???  What has the gun industry done illegal or wrong?
Click to expand...


Nothing

This is just another push to remove responsibility from the individual and place it on a third party.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most killing are committed by gang members. They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 16,000 homicides a year in this country, of which only 1800 a year a gang related.   Most of the rest are domestic arguments that got out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to with "MY" firearms?
Click to expand...

Guns MAKE you kill people didn't you know that just like a bottle of liquor in proximity to a car makes you drive drunk


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> I'm sure the ultimate goal here is to try to put gun manufacturers out of business.




That is all this is about.....Lawfare is one of the best tools of left wing regressives........they bypass congress and even the supreme court if they can sue gun makers......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skull Pilot said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, the Alcohol companies aren't in any real danger because they are responsible corporate citizens.  The gun industry is in the crosshairs because they are manifestly irresponsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irresponsible?  In what way???  What has the gun industry done illegal or wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing
> 
> This is just another push to remove responsibility from the individual and place it on a third party.
Click to expand...


It's amazing.  I think the reason any lib knows anything about the US Constitution is so they can figure out a way to get around it.  I seriously think that's why DumBama studied it in school.


----------



## 2aguy

easyt65 said:


> Victims of Drunk Driver accidents can / should be able to sue the maker of whatever alcohol the drunk driver was drinking...
> 
> ....after all, it was the booze's fault, right?!




Actually, it was the car that did the killing, so they should be able to sue Toyota, Ford, and any other car maker......


----------



## Iceweasel

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......
> 
> 
> 
> Shells don't eject into your face with any regularity, who could sell such a gun? I did have a .45acp round hit my forehead once, but only once. Were you doing the gansta sideways shooting?
> 
> Lanza used a handgun, not the AR. Yes, you can put a semi-auto round through your skull, why wouldn't you be able to?
> 
> As far as the OP, I believe the suit would only apply to Connecticut manufacturer, like Bushmaster (last I heard). Many of them are fleeing the north due to this sort of hostility. I don't see how a Connecticut ruling could effect another state. But as said, the suit will be a big loser for the idiots, the weapon, even if used, wasn't defective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
Click to expand...

Based on what, your personal theory?

Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting  | Conservative Byte
An AR-15, or the so-called “Assault Weapon”, was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged.


----------



## Skull Pilot

2aguy said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victims of Drunk Driver accidents can / should be able to sue the maker of whatever alcohol the drunk driver was drinking...
> 
> ....after all, it was the booze's fault, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the car that did the killing, so they should be able to sue Toyota, Ford, and any other car maker......
Click to expand...


But the booze MADE them drink just like a gun MAKES people kill


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, the Alcohol companies aren't in any real danger because they are responsible corporate citizens.  The gun industry is in the crosshairs because they are manifestly irresponsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irresponsible?  In what way???  What has the gun industry done illegal or wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing
> 
> This is just another push to remove responsibility from the individual and place it on a third party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing.  I think the reason any lib knows anything about the US Constitution is so they can figure out a way to get around it.  I seriously think that's why DumBama studied it in school.
Click to expand...



I agree...his mother hated this country as did his grand father and his mentor, Frank Marshal Davis.....he studied the law to undermine it....


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.



Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
Click to expand...

An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.


----------



## Iceweasel

Timmy said:


> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)


Lying ad, no wonder you like it. It says nothing about "gun violence" whatever that means to the cowardly libtard.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.
Click to expand...


It never fails to amaze me that these control freaks don't even bother to learn that an AR 15 is simply a semi automatic rifle with some doodads on it and not a military grade rifle


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
Click to expand...


No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.


----------



## Iceweasel

ThoughtCrimes said:


> What if...


LOL, you hollowed out your brain with opioids, Swabby.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> How are you going to stop all of these mass killings ?
> 
> What is the plan ?




What is this "all these mass killings?"  We had 4 last year and 2 of them were islamic terrorists.....

in a country with over 357,000,000 million guns, there were 8,124 gun murders in 2014.......from the FBI table 8 on homicide......and the majority of those were criminals murdering criminals.....

That means that less than 8,124 guns were used to commit murder, since many of those murders were committed by a one gun......by one criminal.....

So 356,991,876 million guns were not used in mass shootings or gun murder of any kind......

What is your point....?  Do you understand the difference in those numbers?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. I would love to have a jury see the autopsy and crime scene photographs from Sandy Hook and have a Bushmaster executive try to explain away why giving a military grade weapon to people as crazy as the Lanza family was a good idea.
Click to expand...



You stupid twit....

There are over 3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands.....

how many are used to commit mass shootings?  Last year...2.

You anti gun nuts are insane.......


----------



## Skull Pilot

Let's do this again

This AR 15 "assault" rifle







Is exactly the same as this rifle.  It shoots the exact same round at the exact same rate of fire with the exact same accuracy as this "ranch" rifle







The only difference is cosmetic


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
Click to expand...



again....

3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands....the year of the Sandy Hook shooting how many were used in mass shootings....?  1.

So who are all these mentally unstable people getting these AR-15s.....if they are mentally unstable they sure as hell aren't showing it by their actions twit.


----------



## xband

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.
Click to expand...


However, the AR-15 is easily transformed into a full auto M-16 that is only 22 cal and the AK-47 is 30 cal.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
Click to expand...


Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Should the families of those hit and killed by drunk drivers be able to sue the alcohol companies? Yes or no.



Given the Alcohol companies take reasonable precautions to keep people from driving drunk, no.  

The gun industry goes out of its way to get guns to people like Nancy Lanza and Joker Holmes.  This is a deliberate marketing decision.  The more crime you have, the more people like ray and 2aguy who piss themselves over the thought of the scary negro breaking into their house want more guns, too.  

You see, you have to ask yourself who gave Nancy the idea that she really needed an AR-15, a weapon designed to fight the Vietcong in the jungles of Vietnam.  What could have possibly possessed her of the notion she needed that kind of firepower.

She wasn't buying it to defend herself from preschoolers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

xband said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, the AR-15 is easily transformed into a full auto M-16 that is only 22 cal and the AK-47 is 30 cal.
Click to expand...


And that would be illegal.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the ultimate goal here is to try to put gun manufacturers out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, it is.  or at least change the way they do business.
> 
> Let's look back at the tobacco companies.  What we found out through the tobacco lawsuit was that the tobacco industry was intentionally increasing nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive and marketing the product intentionally to teens.
> 
> The gun industry does the same thing, except they hike addiction to fear instead of nicotine.
> 
> You see, the gun industry made a decision, when hunting started to decline as a sport in this country, to market their products to homeowners.  If a study from the CDC found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, they got all funding for gun studies cut.
> 
> they sold bigger guns to bad people so other people would be scared and want more guns, too.
> 
> Now, i think that the Sandy Hook case might be weak because Nancy Lanza was only moderately crazy, as opposed to her son, who was completely around the bend.
Click to expand...



The CDC did not find it was 43 times more likely....that is a lie that has been shown to be a lie everytime you post that lie....kellerman took data from the worst neighborhoods in the country, did not look at normal neighborhoods and then when he got caught, he had to change his data....and even lied then.....


----------



## Skull Pilot

xband said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, the AR-15 is easily transformed into a full auto M-16 that is only 22 cal and the AK-47 is 30 cal.
Click to expand...

And people who do that are breaking the law.  Most people who own a semiauto will never modify it


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skull Pilot said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
Click to expand...


No, not everyone, just Joe and his kind.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gun deaths aren't criminals.  Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic arguments and accidents.
> 
> Adam Lanza was a completely law abiding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Click to expand...



Hey moron.... our gun suicides went down...as more people bought guns......your whole point about suicide is stupid....considering that Japan, China and South Korea ban access to guns to law abiding citizens...their criminals still get guns.....and their suicide rate is higher than ours....dittos France and othe European countries......


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
Click to expand...



No one gave lanza a gun....he committed murder to get his......twit.  Perhaps we should make murder illegal....?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If we let liberals get their way, that won't be too far down the road.
> 
> Guns are made to shoot things, that's all they are made for. The gun manufacturer produced a product that is legal and did what it's supposed to do. How can you blame them for anything?



How they marketed it and who they sold it to.  the AR-15 was designed to be used on a battlefield, not in a pre-school.  If they only sold it to the military, like they were supposed to, this wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## eagle1462010

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again....
> 
> 3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands....the year of the Sandy Hook shooting how many were used in mass shootings....?  1.
> 
> So who are all these mentally unstable people getting these AR-15s.....if they are mentally unstable they sure as hell aren't showing it by their actions twit.
Click to expand...

Joe is back on track............saying his true purpose................to take all guns like the leftist Boxer in California...................

Joe..............come and fucking take them...............


----------



## Yousaidwhat

xband said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, the AR-15 is easily transformed into a full auto M-16 that is only 22 cal and the AK-47 is 30 cal.
Click to expand...

Which then makes it illegal. Otherwise it is not a chosen weapon of the military.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Hey moron.... our gun suicides went down...as more people bought guns......your whole point about suicide is stupid....



Dick Tiny, we are having a nice conversation here, we don't need you spamming 30 pages of NRA propaganda.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fuck what...............You will punish law abiding citizens who haven't done a damn thing wrong with guns..............You can pass any law you want..........doesn't make it go away.........
> 
> By your own rhetoric...........There are laws against speeding...........Naw nobody will violate that..............LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've stumbled into a good analogy.  No, Speeding laws will never be entirely obeyed.  But they are better than someone barrelling at 80MPH through a school zone, eh?
> 
> By your logic, we should have no speed  limits, because the Founding Slave Rapists wanted us to run down government Bureaucrats some day or something, so those kids should be on their own when some lunatic drives through at 80 MPH even if most people have the common sense to only drive at 25.   And the guy who does barrel down through there at 80MPH should keep doing it until he turns a kid into street pizza, and then we'll do something about it.
Click to expand...



Okay moron....a quick primer on laws and how they work, especially in relation to guns and gun laws....read it...learn something...

If Only Gun Control Worked, Every Pro-Gun Group Wishes It Did

This is the great flaw with law. It doesn’t work. It gives you legal options _after_ the action, and it deters good people, sometimes, but it doesn’t do much other good. _Gun control deters no one intent on evil acts._ Only some of us understand this unfortunately. If laws against armed bank robbery worked, we’d have no armed bank robbers, right?

The constantly vilified supposedly evil gun lobby (the NRA) fervently wishes those laws worked. Every one of their five million members wishes gun-control laws—the 20,000 we hear are already on the books—worked as advertised. 

*There isn’t any criminal act you can commit with a firearm that isn’t already illegal. *

If only those laws did something to stop crime! We’d be safer, and the left wouldn’t be out there, all alone you might have noticed, pressing for still more laws to do what those laws aren’t doing.

The worst part—new gun laws being proposed don’t even confront crime. They don’t have to, because the crimes are already outlawed. But I repeat myself. The new laws make crimes out of things that aren’t crime—by banning legal activity Americans do every day. Look at _gun-transfer laws_, pitched as more background checks* for example, the current rallying cry of more-gun-law proponents.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron.... our gun suicides went down...as more people bought guns......your whole point about suicide is stupid....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tiny, we are having a nice conversation here, we don't need you spamming 30 pages of NRA propaganda.
Click to expand...



moron...please.....show me one link I use from the NRA....they should actually use what I have.....they would be more effective.....twit.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> No one gave lanza a gun....he committed murder to get his......twit. Perhaps we should make murder illegal....?



Or we don't sell it to a woman who thinks the best way to treat a child with a serious mental disorder is to take him to the shooting range, show him how to use a gun, and then let him play violent videogames for hours on end.  

And if someone had bothered to do  any kind of background check on her, they'd have found it out, just like the news media found it out within DAYS of looking into it.


----------



## Iceweasel

xband said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, the AR-15 is easily transformed into a full auto M-16 that is only 22 cal and the AK-47 is 30 cal.
Click to expand...

Huh? What does the size have to do with anything and where did you get the idea going full auto was easy?


----------



## xband

Momentum = mass times velocity and is true for bullets in flight.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Okay moron....a quick primer on laws and how they work, especially in relation to guns and gun laws....read it...learn something...



Guy, I'm about 30 seconds from putting you on ignore because all you do is spam these threads instead of having a nice discussion.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the families of those hit and killed by drunk drivers be able to sue the alcohol companies? Yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the Alcohol companies take reasonable precautions to keep people from driving drunk, no.
> 
> The gun industry goes out of its way to get guns to people like Nancy Lanza and Joker Holmes.  This is a deliberate marketing decision.  The more crime you have, the more people like ray and 2aguy who piss themselves over the thought of the scary negro breaking into their house want more guns, too.
> 
> You see, you have to ask yourself who gave Nancy the idea that she really needed an AR-15, a weapon designed to fight the Vietcong in the jungles of Vietnam.  What could have possibly possessed her of the notion she needed that kind of firepower.
> 
> She wasn't buying it to defend herself from preschoolers.
Click to expand...

And you want to take law abiding citizens weapons away from them because of that nut bag.....................As I just said come and take them Joe..............................You want a Civil War go ahead.....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dramatize the subject.............try to picture a splat on the ground from a speeder.............and say............See IT'S THE SAME THING......
> 
> No the hell it isn't..........
> 
> That speeder..................did this.............so that guy in the other car doing the speed limit and stopping for the kids.............you want to TAKE HIS CAR..............because some asshole speed though a school zone and killed children....................
> 
> We don't get rid of CARS to solve the problem Mr. Genius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't really need to.  We can and do regulate the use of cars effectively.
> 
> We don't regulate the use of guns, which is why you get a Lanza or a Mercer or a Holmes who everyone in their lives knew was batshit crazy but they were able to get a gun, anyway.
Click to expand...



Moron....

in 2013....320,000,000 million guns in private hands...

Accidental gun deaths....  505

Accidental car deaths...  35,000


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we let liberals get their way, that won't be too far down the road.
> 
> Guns are made to shoot things, that's all they are made for. The gun manufacturer produced a product that is legal and did what it's supposed to do. How can you blame them for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How they marketed it and who they sold it to.  the AR-15 was designed to be used on a battlefield, not in a pre-school.  If they only sold it to the military, like they were supposed to, this wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...


WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?  

Supposed to by who's ruling......yours???? 

Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you.  I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children.  Children die from drowning all the time.  I don't think any American should own a pit bull either.  They kill and harm people all the time.  There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.  

Is that the path you think our country should be on?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay moron....a quick primer on laws and how they work, especially in relation to guns and gun laws....read it...learn something...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm about 30 seconds from putting you on ignore because all you do is spam these threads instead of having a nice discussion.
Click to expand...



Please do moron.......you never have a nice discussion......you always get crazy because your sex toy doll won't have sex with you...so you begin to fantasize about sex with guns...which is both dangerous, and just nuts.........get help joe...you really, really need it.


----------



## 2aguy

Guns are one of the safest products out there....ban gravity...it kills more people....

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 drowning*.....3,391
*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*

Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....in a country with 74.2 million children in 2010...

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39

*Total: 69  ( in a country of 320 million people)

Gun Suicide:  21,175

Non gun suicide:  19,974*



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*


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Nope. Not one. And no they don't. There is no legal precedent anywhere in the world for suing a manufacturer for the criminal misuse of their product. It was tried in Israel a few years back but the judge there rightfully reasoned that to allow such a abuse of the legal system would lead to the collapse of that legal system and ultimately the social fabric of the country.
> 
> So, if your goal is to cause the destruction of the legal system, congrats. You are well on your way.



Again, you are ignoring the tobacco settlement as a precedent. 

The Tobacco industry WAS encouraging the illegal use of it's products.  They were intentionally marketing their product to underaged children because they knew from research nobody starts smoking when they are 30.  The lawsuits bore this out when they looked at internal documents.  

Now, here you have a gun industry that is intentionally allowing criminals to get guns, so that guys like 2AGuy and Ray piss themselves at the thought of a scary Negro and want a gun, too.  The market to nuts like Nancy Lanza who think the Zombie apocolypse is coming. And when someone says, "Hey, maybe we need some sensible gun control", they double down on "Obama's gonna take your guns" to boost sales.  

I simply cannot think of a more manifestly irresponsible industry.


----------



## 2aguy

320,000,000 million guns in private hands in 2013.....

505 accidental gun deaths.

Accidental car deaths...35,369

If you have a car and a gun....get rid of the car, carry the gun...and take the bus.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Please do moron.......you never have a nice discussion......you always get crazy because your sex toy doll won't have sex with you...



Wow, dude, that is some seriously weird projection...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> An armchair psychiatrist I see. You determined Lanza's mother to be unstable therefore she must have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman had 8 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo.  She was prepping like the Zombies were coming.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example why the public shouldn't be allowed to say who is sane enough to own a gun and who isn't. Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable. She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him. The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him. Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, somehow stockpiling your house with guns doesn't seem like a good idea when you have a violent anti-social person living there.
Click to expand...



Moron...the kid wasn't violent...at all...until the killing...moron.   He was passive and non aggressive......and picked Sandy Hook because it was a gun free zone....so the school district should be sued for creating a killing zone.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we let liberals get their way, that won't be too far down the road.
> 
> Guns are made to shoot things, that's all they are made for. The gun manufacturer produced a product that is legal and did what it's supposed to do. How can you blame them for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How they marketed it and who they sold it to.  the AR-15 was designed to be used on a battlefield, not in a pre-school.  If they only sold it to the military, like they were supposed to, this wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

It was rejected as it had a tendency to overheat.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## 2aguy

PK1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
> When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
> .
Click to expand...



No...it's not.   again...3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands......1 was used to kill at Sandy Hook.......only anti-gun nuts label that a problem.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons



Yes, AFTER she showed him how to use them. 
AFTER she took him to a gun range
AFTER she let him play violent video games for hours
AFTER she started talking openly about having him committed without securing her guns first.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> And you want to take law abiding citizens weapons away from them because of that nut bag.....................As I just said come and take them Joe..............................You want a Civil War go ahead.....



Most of you guys are pussies and will give up without a fight.  LIke those guys in Oregon did.


----------



## jillian

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......



they can sue.

but people beat the cigarette companies, too, for making a product that was inherently dangerous.

will they win? never know. but they must have drafted their case really well.


----------



## 2aguy

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
Click to expand...



yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?


----------



## jillian

Skull Pilot said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
Click to expand...


no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.


----------



## xband

Shoot at the flash.


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
> When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wake up call to what?
> 
> All her firearms were legal and legally purchased.
> The state had strict firearm laws to purchase and own guns.
> Her guns were locked up in a gun cabinet which is why her son killed her--to get the keys.
> 
> Other than not teaching her son about firearms, I don't know what else she could have done.  Guns are a dangerous product like poison, like knives, like electricity, like swimming pools, like cars........
Click to expand...



Except guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
Click to expand...


where is your study? 

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
Click to expand...



She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
Click to expand...



We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
Click to expand...


everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
Click to expand...


Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

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

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

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

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

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


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to take law abiding citizens weapons away from them because of that nut bag.....................As I just said come and take them Joe..............................You want a Civil War go ahead.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you guys are pussies and will give up without a fight.  LIke those guys in Oregon did.
Click to expand...

Pussies?

Give them up without a fight?

Are you suggesting a Civil War?

That is where this will lead. Everyone I know, former and current military and police will not just give them up that easily.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
Click to expand...



Everyone knew he had mental issues.....no one realized he was violent since he wasn't violent....and the majority of mentally ill people have their problems and are non violent.......


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?
> 
> Supposed to by who's ruling......yours????
> 
> Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you. I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children. Children die from drowning all the time. I don't think any American should own a pit bull either. They kill and harm people all the time. There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.
> 
> Is that the path you think our country should be on?



Guy, 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, and we only have 3000 drownings a year. 

We only have 45 deaths a year due to Dog Bites.   

Your "other things are dangerous, too" act doesn't really fly here.  Pools and Dogs aren't designed to kill people.  Guns are.


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> Pussies?
> 
> Give them up without a fight?
> 
> Are you suggesting a Civil War?
> 
> That is where this will lead. Everyone I know, former and current military and police will not just give them up that easily.



I'm sure there are some nuts who will go out like the Branch Davidians.   

No great loss.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to take law abiding citizens weapons away from them because of that nut bag.....................As I just said come and take them Joe..............................You want a Civil War go ahead.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you guys are pussies and will give up without a fight.  LIke those guys in Oregon did.
Click to expand...

Whatever Joe.....................A lot of people are tired of your shit.......and those pushing these agenda's.........and those in Oregon were doing so to get litigation.................Most are not gonna go down quietly and we sure as hell aren't gonna line up for them..................

You keep pushing the GRAB ALL GUNS.............and you will not get what happened in Oregon...........and it sure as hell isn't just me saying that...................

You will not be grabbing guns......you will be praising it from your computer room calling others pussies.....

Like I said.............try to take the guns and see what the fuck happens.......This isn't Europe........The Founding Fathers were right...........to put the 2nd Amendment in to protect ourselves even if it happens to be from our own Gov't.......

Have you looked at the numbers 2aguy has been posting.......We have enough private weapons in this country to go to War with any Nation on earth..........Not Federally owned..........Privately owned....

And you want to take them all............


----------



## Yousaidwhat

jillian said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
Click to expand...

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron...the kid wasn't violent...at all...until the killing...moron. He was passive and non aggressive......and picked Sandy Hook because it was a gun free zone....so the school district should be sued for creating a killing zone.



Actually he picked it because he used to go there and it was some kind of childhood trauma.  But your fantasies about heat-packing preschoolers aside, he's someone who never should have had access to a gun. 

So why did he?


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....
> 
> 
> I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC
> 
> And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the  links....
> GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
> 
> GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
> 
> Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
> 
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
> 
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)
> 
> *Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --*------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> 
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)
> 
> *DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)*
> 
> *Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."*
> 
> (Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])
> 
> Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> 
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> 
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)
> 
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> *****************************************
> *If you take  the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....*
Click to expand...


your so called sources are not sources. 

and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist 

feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have. 

and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
Click to expand...


Here is a list of all the mass shootings since the 1990s........from Mother Jones....please tell me how right wing and pro gun and what part of the NRA Mother Jones is....

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


2015....4

2014....2

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985...0

1984...2

1983...0

1982...1


----------



## jillian

Yousaidwhat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
Click to expand...


SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...the kid wasn't violent...at all...until the killing...moron. He was passive and non aggressive......and picked Sandy Hook because it was a gun free zone....so the school district should be sued for creating a killing zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he picked it because he used to go there and it was some kind of childhood trauma.  But your fantasies about heat-packing preschoolers aside, he's someone who never should have had access to a gun.
> 
> So why did he?
Click to expand...




Wrong...twit.....he went to Sandy Hook, the middle school and the High School....he scouted all 3 locations for years.......and the middle school and the high school had armed security...Sandy Hook did not......


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Like I said.............try to take the guns and see what the fuck happens.......This isn't Europe........The Founding Fathers were right...........to put the 2nd Amendment in to protect ourselves even if it happens to be from our own Gov't.......
> 
> Have you looked at the numbers 2aguy has been posting.......We have enough private weapons in this country to go to War with any Nation on earth..........Not Federally owned..........Privately owned....
> 
> And you want to take them all............



Yes, I would like to take them all.  You don[t need them.  And frankly, if you are the kind of nut who thinks he needs to shoot a federal agent because you don't like the fact you lost an election, we need to treat you the way we'd treat a rabid dog.


----------



## xband

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....
Click to expand...


When you sleep with dogs you get fleas.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

jillian said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
Click to expand...

Then she should have had him committed.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....
> 
> 
> I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC
> 
> And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the  links....
> GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
> 
> GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
> 
> Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
> 
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
> 
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)
> 
> *Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --*------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> 
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)
> 
> *DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)*
> 
> *Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."*
> 
> (Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])
> 
> Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> 
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> 
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)
> 
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> *****************************************
> *If you take  the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your so called sources are not sources.
> 
> and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist
> 
> feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have.
> 
> and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.
Click to expand...



Do you even realize that those are actual studies, conducted by trained researchers in the fields of economics and criminology...many, if not most are anti gunner studies........like the clinton justice department study...two rabidly anti gunners....


Do you realize that the gun murder rate has been going down since the 1990s as more Americans have bought, owned and carried guns...this is not made up...this is a fact....from both the FBI and the CDC.....you are wrong....in all ways....and the list of mass shootings...check it out...not going up....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

jillian said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
Click to expand...


They weren't available to him.  They were locked up in a gun cabinet.


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....
Click to expand...


is that the wing nut lie now?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Yousaidwhat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have had him committed.
Click to expand...


She was in the process of doing that.  That's what set him off in the first place.


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....
> 
> 
> I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC
> 
> And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the  links....
> GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
> 
> GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
> 
> Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
> 
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
> 
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)
> 
> *Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --*------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> 
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)
> 
> *DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)*
> 
> *Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."*
> 
> (Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])
> 
> Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> 
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> 
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)
> 
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> *****************************************
> *If you take  the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your so called sources are not sources.
> 
> and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist
> 
> feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have.
> 
> and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize that those are actual studies, conducted by trained researchers in the fields of economics and criminology...many, if not most are anti gunner studies........like the clinton justice department study...two rabidly anti gunners....
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the gun murder rate has been going down since the 1990s as more Americans have bought, owned and carried guns...this is not made up...this is a fact....from both the FBI and the CDC.....you are wrong....in all ways....and the list of mass shootings...check it out...not going up....
Click to expand...


i trslixr that you're using sources making claims. i know nothing about the so-called studies or if they were committed by you nutters

i do know your sources are gun nut sources and that you're never correct or honest.


----------



## Wilbur Right

eagle1462010 said:


> Whatever Joe.....................A lot of people are tired of your shit.......and those pushing these agenda's.........and those in Oregon were doing so to get litigation.................Most are not gonna go down quietly and we sure as hell aren't gonna line up for them..................






I keep waiting for you gun nutters to act. Every day the confiscation of our beloved guns continues to grow.

Buy all you fuckers do is run your mouths on a message board.

When on the fuck are you going to DO something about this travesty?

And writing shit to Joe isn't "doing" anything. Joe isn't going to take your guns. He's waiting just like me for you and 2a guy to put YOUR guns where your mouth is.

What are you guys waiting for. The situation is bad and getting worse.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.............try to take the guns and see what the fuck happens.......This isn't Europe........The Founding Fathers were right...........to put the 2nd Amendment in to protect ourselves even if it happens to be from our own Gov't.......
> 
> Have you looked at the numbers 2aguy has been posting.......We have enough private weapons in this country to go to War with any Nation on earth..........Not Federally owned..........Privately owned....
> 
> And you want to take them all............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to take them all.  You don[t need them.  And frankly, if you are the kind of nut who thinks he needs to shoot a federal agent because you don't like the fact you lost an election, we need to treat you the way we'd treat a rabid dog.
Click to expand...

Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............

And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................

I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................

I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY  statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........

We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....

Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....
> 
> 
> I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC
> 
> And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the  links....
> GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
> 
> GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
> 
> Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
> 
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
> 
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)
> 
> *Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --*------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> 
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)
> 
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)
> 
> *DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)*
> 
> *Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."*
> 
> (Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])
> 
> Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> 
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> 
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)
> 
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> *****************************************
> *If you take  the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your so called sources are not sources.
> 
> and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist
> 
> feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have.
> 
> and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.
Click to expand...



here is the actual study done by bill clinton through his Department of Justice....they hired two rabid anti gunners to create a study to directly refute the work by Dr. Gary Kleck....and after creating the study, conducting the study...they found that defensive gun use by Americans was 1,500,000 times a year....which as you saw is not out of line with the other gun studies that have been done...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

*Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. *

This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have had him committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in the process of doing that.  That's what set him off in the first place.
Click to expand...

She should have had him committed quietly. I'm sure she didn't realize she would lose her life in the process.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

jillian said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
Click to expand...

I will grant you that. She should have removed the weapons until he was removed.


----------



## eagle1462010

Wilbur Right said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Joe.....................A lot of people are tired of your shit.......and those pushing these agenda's.........and those in Oregon were doing so to get litigation.................Most are not gonna go down quietly and we sure as hell aren't gonna line up for them..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep waiting for you gun nutters to act. Every day the confiscation of our beloved guns continues to grow.
> 
> Buy all you fuckers do is run your mouths on a message board.
> 
> When on the fuck are you going to DO something about this travesty?
> 
> And writing shit to Joe isn't "doing" anything. Joe isn't going to take your guns. He's waiting just like me for you and 2a guy to put YOUR guns where your mouth is.
> 
> What are you guys waiting for. The situation is bad and getting worse.
Click to expand...

Why don't you  

Have they taken the guns yet dumb ass.................


----------



## 2aguy

Yousaidwhat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have had him committed.
Click to expand...



She tried...but the left wing regressives have made that almost impossible....


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have had him committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She tried...but the left wing regressives have made that almost impossible....
Click to expand...


ok nut bar. now you know why we mostly laugh at you. 

and do learn what regressive means. it makes you sound more stupid than usual.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wasn't Lanza on psychotropic drugs? That screws up your mind.


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> Let them sue.  Sounds like a tough case to win.
> 
> But why should gun makers have special laws protecting them from suits ??




They don't......they have protection from law suits that try to blame them for the illegal use of their guns by people who use them illegally.......if they have defective guns they can be sued like any other business......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?
> 
> Supposed to by who's ruling......yours????
> 
> Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you. I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children. Children die from drowning all the time. I don't think any American should own a pit bull either. They kill and harm people all the time. There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.
> 
> Is that the path you think our country should be on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, and we only have 3000 drownings a year.
> 
> We only have 45 deaths a year due to Dog Bites.
> 
> Your "other things are dangerous, too" act doesn't really fly here.  Pools and Dogs aren't designed to kill people.  Guns are.
Click to expand...


They're not?  You mean out of the dozens of breeds, people buy pit bulls because of their kind nature?


----------



## xband

The strong survive and the weak perish. Darwin


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have had him committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She tried...but the left wing regressives have made that almost impossible....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok nut bar. now you know why we mostly laugh at you.
> 
> and do learn what regressive means. it makes you sound more stupid than usual.
Click to expand...



So....I showed that you were talking out of your ass on mass shootings...using Mother Jones as the source.

I showed that you were talking out of your ass on how many times guns are used for self defense...using bill clinton as the source.

I have cited the FBi, and the CDC showing that gun murder has been going down since the 1990s as more Americans own and actually carry guns...in fact, 13 million Americans now carry guns...and the gun murder rate has dropped....

And before you deflect with...."Causation,"  I am not talking about causation here....I am talking about the fact that more Americans carry guns...and own them....and the violent crime rate, the gun suicide rate and the gun murder rate and the gun accident rate have all gone down......


You have been shown to be talking out of your ass......which isn't even funny when Jim Carry does it....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People use guns to protect themselves from crime 1 - 2 million times a year. Many of those people could have been raped or killed. You math doesn't include those figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my figures do not include Unicorn farts, either.
> 
> DGU's are a lie.  They almost never happen.
Click to expand...



Except for all the research that shows they actually happen...you mean except for that...right?


----------



## Wilbur Right

eagle1462010 said:


> Why don't you
> 
> Have they taken the guns yet dumb ass.............






Hey asshole, you are the one running your fucking mouth about how you gun nutters are going to bring hell and damnation down on those taking your guns.

Are you all mouth? Or are you going to do something about this?
Are you so.stupid you believe talking shit on  message board is doing something about people taking your guns.

Or did Joe have it right the first time; you and 2a are pussies?


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !
Click to expand...



There were 320,000,000 guns in private hands in 2013....there were 505 accidental gun deaths.......about 5,000 non fatal gun accidents....

you need to redefine "all the time."

Car accidental deaths...35,369 in 2013.........


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people drown in their own backyard pools all the time too.  Are the pool manufacturers responsible?
Click to expand...



Accidental gun deaths.... 505.

Accidental drowning deaths... 3,000


----------



## Wilbur Right

2aguy said:


> I showed that you were talking out of your ass on how many times guns are used for self defense...using bill clinton as the source.




You loves you some Bill.Clinton. fortunately the stupid fucking survey you cling to has been proven wrong repeatedly and you are.to.fucking stupid to understand the truth.


----------



## eagle1462010

Wilbur Right said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you
> 
> Have they taken the guns yet dumb ass.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey asshole, you are the one running your fucking mouth about how you gun nutters are going to bring hell and damnation down on those taking your guns.
> 
> Are you all mouth? Or are you going to do something about this?
> Are you so.stupid you believe talking shit on  message board is doing something about people taking your guns.
> 
> Or did Joe have it right the first time; you and 2a are pussies?
Click to expand...

Good bye bitch.......ignore land MF.............


----------



## 2aguy

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................
> 
> How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice.  Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.  Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers..  They never stood a fucking chance.
> 
> Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts.   With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poison is a dangerous product.  You can walk into any hardware store and buy Strychnine.  thousands of people are poisoned every year.  When are you going to demand that poison be outlawed?
Click to expand...



Accidental gun deaths in 2013...with over 320,000,000 million guns in private hands...

505 

Accidental poisoning deaths in 2013...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf



Poisons...accidental deaths 2013...*.38,851*


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*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

2aguy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
Click to expand...



Exactly.  Last week in a nearby community, some violent thug kidnapped his girlfriend and set her mothers house on fire.  They got out of the Cleveland area for obvious reasons, and went to PA.  He tried to break into somebody's home I'm assuming for a place to hide from the police.  His plan would have worked fine if not for the armed homeowner who put a bullet in the SOB.  The police came by and took him into custody. 

Who knows what would have happened to that young girl if the homeowner was not armed. He not only saved his life, but hers as well.


----------



## 2aguy

Wilbur Right said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that you were talking out of your ass on how many times guns are used for self defense...using bill clinton as the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You loves you some Bill.Clinton. fortunately the stupid fucking survey you cling to has been proven wrong repeatedly and you are.to.fucking stupid to understand the truth.
Click to expand...



No.....bill clinton's gun research wasn't proven wrong...nor was the other 13 studies..........keep trying though....talking out of your ass is no way to argue a point....


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................



Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.  

The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.
> 
> I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight.  But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one.  If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.
> 
> The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are not dangerous to the owner.  They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you.  I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them.  Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?
> 
> We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dangerous tonthe owner ?  People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people drown in their own backyard pools all the time too.  Are the pool manufacturers responsible?
Click to expand...



Accidental gun deaths in 2013....

*505*

Accidental drowning deaths in 2013..


Accidental drowning*.....

3,391*


----------



## xband

Using cuss words shows a confused mind.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.
> 
> The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.
Click to expand...



Okay....3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands...... 2 were used by Sandy Hook and Colorado...

Sooooooooo, twit......3,749,998 were not used to commit mass shootings.......your point is stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Exactly. Last week in a nearby community, some violent thug kidnapped his girlfriend and set her mothers house on fire. They got out of the Cleveland area for obvious reasons, and went to PA. He tried to break into somebody's home I'm assuming for a place to hide from the police. His plan would have worked fine if not for the armed homeowner who put a bullet in the SOB. The police came by and took him into custody.
> 
> Who knows what would have happened to that young girl if the homeowner was not armed. He not only saved his life, but hers as well.



we have 33,000 gun deaths a year in this country.  Of those, only 200 a year involve citizens killing bad guys in justifiable homicides. (I don't count police shootings, because they can practically gun down a child in the street and have it called "Justified" if the child is black) 

Sorry, DGU's dont happen often enough to justify the carnage.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Okay....3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands...... 2 were used by Sandy Hook and Colorado...
> 
> Sooooooooo, twit......3,749,998 were not used to commit mass shootings.......your point is stupid.



Are you seeing someone for your OCD?   How many gun posts do you do a day?  How many message boards are you on.


----------



## Skull Pilot

A AR 15 is no different that the


jillian said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
Click to expand...


Did she know he was dangerous?  Did she think he would go on a murderous rampage?

I don't know that so please tell me how you know.

And then tell me how the gun manufacturer was liable for any deaths


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, AFTER she showed him how to use them.
> AFTER she took him to a gun range
> AFTER she let him play violent video games for hours
> AFTER she started talking openly about having him committed without securing her guns first.
Click to expand...


Wow, what a state of denial.  Her guns were secured, yet your mind just won't accept that.


----------



## Skull Pilot

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
Click to expand...


Or his father abandoned his kid because he was an asshole


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands...... 2 were used by Sandy Hook and Colorado...
> 
> Sooooooooo, twit......3,749,998 were not used to commit mass shootings.......your point is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seeing someone for your OCD?   How many gun posts do you do a day?  How many message boards are you on.
Click to expand...

How many are you trolling........saying you want all guns banned in the United States skippy.............


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They're not? You mean out of the dozens of breeds, people buy pit bulls because of their kind nature?



Naw, dude, they buy them for the same reason they buy guns.   To make up for their "shortcomings".


----------



## 2aguy

Just for the record....how many AR-15s are in private hands....according to Slate.....please...tell me how Slate is a right wing, pro gun, NRA site.....

How Many Assault Weapons Are There in America? How Much Would It Cost the Government To Buy Them Back?

Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading assault-style rifles make up around 1 percent of the total arsenal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands...... 2 were used by Sandy Hook and Colorado...
> 
> Sooooooooo, twit......3,749,998 were not used to commit mass shootings.......your point is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seeing someone for your OCD?   How many gun posts do you do a day?  How many message boards are you on.
Click to expand...


How many times does somebody present facts to you and you refuse to accept them?


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Last week in a nearby community, some violent thug kidnapped his girlfriend and set her mothers house on fire. They got out of the Cleveland area for obvious reasons, and went to PA. He tried to break into somebody's home I'm assuming for a place to hide from the police. His plan would have worked fine if not for the armed homeowner who put a bullet in the SOB. The police came by and took him into custody.
> 
> Who knows what would have happened to that young girl if the homeowner was not armed. He not only saved his life, but hers as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have 33,000 gun deaths a year in this country.  Of those, only 200 a year involve citizens killing bad guys in justifiable homicides. (I don't count police shootings, because they can practically gun down a child in the street and have it called "Justified" if the child is black)
> 
> Sorry, DGU's dont happen often enough to justify the carnage.
Click to expand...


Here we go again

Suicides don't count our suicide rate is virtually the same as many other countries who have strict gun control

And gun use in self defense does NOT have to result in anyone dying or even being shot


----------



## jillian

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have had him committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She tried...but the left wing regressives have made that almost impossible....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok nut bar. now you know why we mostly laugh at you.
> 
> and do learn what regressive means. it makes you sound more stupid than usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....I showed that you were talking out of your ass on mass shootings...using Mother Jones as the source.
> 
> I showed that you were talking out of your ass on how many times guns are used for self defense...using bill clinton as the source.
> 
> I have cited the FBi, and the CDC showing that gun murder has been going down since the 1990s as more Americans own and actually carry guns...in fact, 13 million Americans now carry guns...and the gun murder rate has dropped....
> 
> And before you deflect with...."Causation,"  I am not talking about causation here....I am talking about the fact that more Americans carry guns...and own them....and the violent crime rate, the gun suicide rate and the gun murder rate and the gun accident rate have all gone down......
> 
> 
> You have been shown to be talking out of your ass......which isn't even funny when Jim Carry does it....
Click to expand...


why do you think mother jones disputes what we know about mass shootings?

and why are you using somethings a source which a) i would never use; and b) yu would dismiss if anyone else used it; an c) why so you think it invalidates what we know?

so we not make theft and murder illegal even though criminals still commit theft and murder illegal?

finally, heller specifically permits reasonable regulation.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> How many are you trolling........saying you want all guns banned in the United States skippy.............



1) I only visit this site on a regular basis. 
2) I talk about other topics other than guns. 
3) I don't flood threads with cut and paste NRA Talking points that he must have a file for somewhere. 

Seriously, check out 2AgUY'S Posting history...  It's pages and pages of gun posts.  The guy is obsessed with guns.


----------



## Skull Pilot

2aguy said:


> Just for the record....how many AR-15s are in private hands....according to Slate.....please...tell me how Slate is a right wing, pro gun, NRA site.....
> 
> How Many Assault Weapons Are There in America? How Much Would It Cost the Government To Buy Them Back?
> 
> Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading assault-style rifles make up around 1 percent of the total arsenal.



More people are killed with fists, feet and blunt objects than by all rifles and shotguns combined


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Joe not DEMANDING that alcohol be banned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are u saying we don't regulate alcohol?  Cause we do.
> 
> And you can use a bar for overserving a drunk who then kills someone in a car accident .
> 
> But gun companies get special protection??
Click to expand...



Nope....not special protection...actual protection.....if they sell a gun to someone who passes all the laws of the country, and then takes that gun and commits a crime...the gun maker did not do anything wrong.  Therefore they should not be sued.....and nuiscance suits to put them out of business is what the anti gunners are just drooling over.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Desperado said:


> More Political Correctness from the Obama Administration.
> There was no malfunction with the guns, The guns performed as advertised.
> Therefor there is no reason to sue the gun manufacturers.  It would be like the families of drunk driving victims being able to sue the car manufacturers,
> The families can sue the shooter but most of the time they don't have the deep pockets like the manufacturers do.




Well....the Dems should hurry up and organize lawsuits against pencil manufacturers, car companies, and those who make utensils....

....after all, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Here we go again
> 
> Suicides don't count our suicide rate is virtually the same as many other countries who have strict gun control
> 
> And gun use in self defense does NOT have to result in anyone dying or even being shot



So I guess I should go over and tell my neighbors wife who shot himself a couple years ago that it's okay, his death didn't count because it was a suicide.... 

Yeah, that will go over well.


----------



## Skull Pilot

jillian said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.
Click to expand...


Since when does any right hinge on such circumstances?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many are you trolling........saying you want all guns banned in the United States skippy.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I only visit this site on a regular basis.
> 2) I talk about other topics other than guns.
> 3) I don't flood threads with cut and paste NRA Talking points that he must have a file for somewhere.
> 
> Seriously, check out 2AgUY'S Posting history...  It's pages and pages of gun posts.  The guy is obsessed with guns.
Click to expand...



Twit.......the 2a in my title is for the 2nd Amendment...I am not obsessed with guns as you can see from how rarely I post in the firearm thread......my focus is on Civil Rights and Freedom...and the ability of normal, innocent, law abiding people to be safe from harm from street criminals and socialist governments....killers both......

you are obsessed with guns...to the point you have sexual fantasies about them and can't think of a gun without thinking of a man's penis....you need help.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again
> 
> Suicides don't count our suicide rate is virtually the same as many other countries who have strict gun control
> 
> And gun use in self defense does NOT have to result in anyone dying or even being shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess I should go over and tell my neighbors wife who shot himself a couple years ago that it's okay, his death didn't count because it was a suicide....
> 
> Yeah, that will go over well.
Click to expand...



Yep....you go do that....since if he didn't have the gun he would have hung himself...the most popular way to commit suicide around the world.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not? You mean out of the dozens of breeds, people buy pit bulls because of their kind nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, dude, they buy them for the same reason they buy guns.   To make up for their "shortcomings".
Click to expand...


Yes, when you don't have a coherent answer, go back to your dick obsession.  When you do that, we know you lost the debate.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Nope....not special protection...actual protection.....if they sell a gun to someone who passes all the laws of the country, and then takes that gun and commits a crime...the gun maker did not do anything wrong. Therefore they should not be sued.....and nuiscance suits to put them out of business is what the anti gunners are just drooling over.....



They sold guns to manifestly irresponsible people.  Yeah, that is wrong. 

Like Isaid, put it in front of a jury.  Have some Bushmaster Exec try to explain away Sandy Hook crime photos...  that will be fun to watch.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again
> 
> Suicides don't count our suicide rate is virtually the same as many other countries who have strict gun control
> 
> And gun use in self defense does NOT have to result in anyone dying or even being shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess I should go over and tell my neighbors wife who shot himself a couple years ago that it's okay, his death didn't count because it was a suicide....
> 
> Yeah, that will go over well.
Click to expand...


Suicide is not a crime it is a choice.  It's not up to you to make choices for other people even though you have a pathological need to do so


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
Click to expand...



Because you can sue them out of existence even if they can win in court.....fighting law suits based on false claims can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.......if not millions......and you don't get that back if you win....and that is the way the left wants to attack gun rights....


----------



## 2aguy

westwall said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I sue a newspaper if it wrote a story that caused harm?   Imagine the bandwagon lawyers who would line up out the door of the court house to sue any newspaper in the world.   One would wonder if industries that are involved in our constitutional rights don't deserve some protection from lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sue newspapers all the time .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do sue newspapers all the time, but they don't sue the company that manufactured the paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the sandy hook people suing the steel companies supplying the gun people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the builders of the school?  Had it not been for the school being there the asshole wouldn't have had such a target rich environment.   Heck.  I think they should sue all of the taxpayers of the State.  It is their fault that the building was funded in the first place.
Click to expand...



They did not have armed security like the middle school and high school did...they are criminally culpable.....and should be sued...right?


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many are you trolling........saying you want all guns banned in the United States skippy.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I only visit this site on a regular basis.
> 2) I talk about other topics other than guns.
> 3) I don't flood threads with cut and paste NRA Talking points that he must have a file for somewhere.
> 
> Seriously, check out 2AgUY'S Posting history...  It's pages and pages of gun posts.  The guy is obsessed with guns.
Click to expand...

2aguy didn't start this thread.....

I DID.............

And it is a LEGAL twist to the argument...............A Federal Judge has allowed the people to sue the Gun Manufacturers...........which is why I posted it.....

It is current and a NEW LEGAL CHALLENGE........It is not the same old same old..............

To that point................I think it's BS to sue the manufacturer of guns when it is the individual that did the crime................I've never seen a gun walk out and shoot something by itself.........Have you..........

You on the other hand..........always jump on these threads and TROLL that you will TAKE ALL GUNS......even though you attempted to water down that fact early on.........

I'm on 2aguys side here.........NOT YOURS...........He's posting facts..........and you keep posting your.

Listen guy.......look buddy...........and with very little to back anything up.............You would take weapons from Law abiding citizens for the acts of CRIMINALS.........and that is just BS........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

PoliticalChic said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Political Correctness from the Obama Administration.
> There was no malfunction with the guns, The guns performed as advertised.
> Therefor there is no reason to sue the gun manufacturers.  It would be like the families of drunk driving victims being able to sue the car manufacturers,
> The families can sue the shooter but most of the time they don't have the deep pockets like the manufacturers do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....the Dems should hurry up and organize lawsuits against pencil manufacturers, car companies, and those who make utensils....
> 
> ....after all, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.
Click to expand...


And don't forget this wonderful internet.  Thousands of people get scammed out of money every year because of the internet.  Young people have committed suicide because of things others have said on Facebook.  Hell, your identity can get stolen by simply sending your tax form to the IRS through the internet.  Murderers have set up sellers of merchandise only so they can kill them.  Hundreds have used this device to download pictures and movies of children having sex.  

Maybe people should be able to sue Apple and Microsoft.


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are companies marketing their product?  Do you see gun billboards on the highway?  Do you see gun commercials on your television or on the radio?
> 
> The only people that are subject to gun advertising are those who are in the NRA, deal with a gun shop, or register their firearm with the manufacturer.  Other than that, there is no gun advertising in this country.
Click to expand...



We should not surrender though.....guns are not evil, they are not illegal....there should be advertising for them...and they should not be sued......giving them that space in the fight is giving them an edge......Gun makers should be able to sell their legal, constitutionally protected product on t.v. the radio and wherever else they want.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

2aguy said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you can sue them out of existence even if they can win in court.....fighting law suits based on false claims can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.......if not millions......and you don't get that back if you win....and that is the way the left wants to attack gun rights....
Click to expand...


Which is why if Republicans get into the White House and keep the Congress, they should pass a law of Loser Pays.  You can sue for anything you desire, but if you lose the case, you are liable for all the expenses of the defendant.  You'd see how fast lawsuits like this would stop.


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they lose their suit.  What are u bitching about ?
Click to expand...



And the gun makers lose milliions defending themselves against law suits that should have been stopped by a responsible judge...there is no merit in the case...but the left wing, anti gun judge sees this as an opportunity to destroy Bushmaster.....so he let the case go forward....they also hope to have a Supreme Court in place should the case make it all the way there...then they can destroy every gun maker in the country.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, when you don't have a coherent answer, go back to your dick obsession. When you do that, we know you lost the debate.



Actually, that's really the answer at the end of the day. 

You want a gun because you feel inadequate.  The gun gives you the illusion you can compensate for your inadequacies.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ray From Cleveland said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Political Correctness from the Obama Administration.
> There was no malfunction with the guns, The guns performed as advertised.
> Therefor there is no reason to sue the gun manufacturers.  It would be like the families of drunk driving victims being able to sue the car manufacturers,
> The families can sue the shooter but most of the time they don't have the deep pockets like the manufacturers do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....the Dems should hurry up and organize lawsuits against pencil manufacturers, car companies, and those who make utensils....
> 
> ....after all, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And don't forget this wonderful internet.  Thousands of people get scammed out of money every year because of the internet.  Young people have committed suicide because of things others have said on Facebook.  Hell, your identity can get stolen by simply sending your tax form to the IRS through the internet.  Murderers have set up sellers of merchandise only so they can kill them.  Hundreds have used this device to download pictures and movies of children having sex.
> 
> Maybe people should be able to sue Apple and Microsoft.
Click to expand...




I certainly get your point, Ray.....
...but the fascists already have their foot on the throat of the free dissemination of information, the internet....

*"Net Neutrality: Strangling the Information Highway with Red Tape"*
*Net Neutrality: Strangling the Information Highway with Red Tape – Capital Research Center


The future is.....past.*


----------



## Desperado

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope....not special protection...actual protection.....if they sell a gun to someone who passes all the laws of the country, and then takes that gun and commits a crime...the gun maker did not do anything wrong. Therefore they should not be sued.....and nuiscance suits to put them out of business is what the anti gunners are just drooling over.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They sold guns to manifestly irresponsible people.  Yeah, that is wrong.
> 
> Like Isaid, put it in front of a jury.  Have some Bushmaster Exec try to explain away Sandy Hook crime photos...  that will be fun to watch.
Click to expand...

First off, unless the Gun manufacturers have a factory outlet, they do not sell guns directly to the public, they sell guns to retail stores which then sell the guns.
So your argument is false to begin with.  So how can you use you argument to sue Colt when they had nothing to do with the individual sale of the gun?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And the gun makers lose milliions defending themselves against law suits that should have been stopped by a responsible judge...there is no merit in the case...but the left wing, anti gun judge sees this as an opportunity to destroy Bushmaster.....so he let the case go forward....they also hope to have a Supreme Court in place should the case make it all the way there...then they can destroy every gun maker in the country.



And this would be a bad thing, why?  

This is an industry that thrives off of death and fear.  They've flooded our streets with weapons to the point where most of us are afraid to go out at night.  Now some of their victims are going to put them out of business.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you don't have a coherent answer, go back to your dick obsession. When you do that, we know you lost the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's really the answer at the end of the day.
> 
> You want a gun because you feel inadequate.  The gun gives you the illusion you can compensate for your inadequacies.
Click to expand...

There are other threads for your transgender feelings to be posted Joe................Not here dumb ass.........


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lanza boy obtained weapons ILLEGALLY.  It was not the fault of the manufacturers of the weapon.  We do in fact have laws about weapons and who can have them.  Felons are not allowed to own guns.  Just like drunk drivers who have had their drivers licenses suspended due to drinking and driving are not allowed to drive cars, but they still do sometimes.  I guess the state/city is responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his bitch mom lived, should she have faced charges?
Click to expand...



No....she was murdered to get her guns....he stole the guns from her, the lawful owner.  Should a rape victim be arrested for prostitution?  Since she had sex with a stranger.....?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you don't have a coherent answer, go back to your dick obsession. When you do that, we know you lost the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's really the answer at the end of the day.
> 
> You want a gun because you feel inadequate.  The gun gives you the illusion you can compensate for your inadequacies.
Click to expand...


No, a gun gives you protection from violent Democrats.  Like I stated before, the only way we can get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first.  If we can get rid of Democrats, our violent crime rate would drop by at least 80%. 

But as long as we do have Democrats, we need guns to protect ourselves.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the gun makers lose milliions defending themselves against law suits that should have been stopped by a responsible judge...there is no merit in the case...but the left wing, anti gun judge sees this as an opportunity to destroy Bushmaster.....so he let the case go forward....they also hope to have a Supreme Court in place should the case make it all the way there...then they can destroy every gun maker in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this would be a bad thing, why?
> 
> This is an industry that thrives off of death and fear.  They've flooded our streets with weapons to the point where most of us are afraid to go out at night.  Now some of their victims are going to put them out of business.
Click to expand...

All we have to do is advertise your views on guns to the public and it would sell a million more guns.........


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> [
> 
> Wow, what a state of denial.  Her guns were secured, yet your mind just won't accept that.



Obviously, they weren't secure if he got to them.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, a gun gives you protection from violent Democrats. Like I stated before, the only way we can get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. If we can get rid of Democrats, our violent crime rate would drop by at least 80%.
> 
> But as long as we do have Democrats, we need guns to protect ourselves.



Why don't you just say the N'word like you really want to, guy.  It would be more honest.


----------



## Desperado

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the gun makers lose milliions defending themselves against law suits that should have been stopped by a responsible judge...there is no merit in the case...but the left wing, anti gun judge sees this as an opportunity to destroy Bushmaster.....so he let the case go forward....they also hope to have a Supreme Court in place should the case make it all the way there...then they can destroy every gun maker in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this would be a bad thing, why?
> 
> This is an industry that thrives off of death and fear.  They've flooded our streets with weapons to the point where most of us are afraid to go out at night.  Now some of their victims are going to put them out of business.
Click to expand...


Where do you get your statistics, just because you maybe afraid to go out at night does not mean that most people feel the same way.


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people have .
> 
> The point is that they have the opportunity .  The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product .  I think they will lose.
> 
> But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court .  But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits .   Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link.  I don't believe you.  There are no commercials on television about guns.  However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking.  My father died as a direct result of alcohol.  Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers?  Yes or no.
> 
> I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver.  The guy was also driving after a suspended license.  Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever look in a Gun magazine ?  Do they not have adds ???!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever look in Newsweek?  Do they have gun adds?  No?  There sure are a lot of alcohol adds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes or no, do gun mags have adds??
> 
> Cause yall flapped you mouths that gun makers don't advertise .  Now all of a sudden it's "Newsweek ".
> 
> Who's the one avoiding questions ????
Click to expand...



Who cares if they advertise......guns are a legal, constitutionally protected product......see...this is why we can't give them this space in the fight......they want to attack the First Amendment and the Second amendment........

They have a right to advertise guns.......and not be sued for people who use their products illegallly.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> All we have to do is advertise your views on guns to the public and it would sell a million more guns.........



Yes, because my opinion carries so much weight.  

Guy, only 22% of the population owns guns.  You are in the minority.  And even a lot of gun owners think people like you who want to shoot government officials are kind of nuts.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wow, what a state of denial.  Her guns were secured, yet your mind just won't accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, they weren't secure if he got to them.
Click to expand...

He killed her dumb ass................He lived in the house dumb ass.............like he couldn't eventually figure out how to get into the safe.......

You are just pushing your agenda via tragedy...............and the manufacturers didn't pull that danged trigger..................

Your a political hack..........who DEMANDS others OBEY YOUR FEELINGS when we DISAGREE......And are a poster child for gun sales.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we have to do is advertise your views on guns to the public and it would sell a million more guns.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because my opinion carries so much weight.
> 
> Guy, only 22% of the population owns guns.  You are in the minority.  And even a lot of gun owners think people like you who want to shoot government officials are kind of nuts.
Click to expand...

You've been trying to take them for decades..........and we still own them............Your still a loser because some in this country still believe in the Constitution here........you not so much.


----------



## 2aguy

Kondor3 said:


> Based on what (very) little that I understand of the case so far, the families have absolutely zero hope for a legal victory... zero.
> 
> The plaintiffs' attorneys appear to be feeding on the emotions and grief of the families and holding out the prospect of victories that have no chance of materializing.




They aren't looking for a legal victory...they are looking for millions of dollars in legal fees for the gun company defending itself......


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Or his father abandoned his kid because he was an asshole



No, the father wanted to get him committed.  Mom was the one who decided to give him guns.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a gun gives you protection from violent Democrats. Like I stated before, the only way we can get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. If we can get rid of Democrats, our violent crime rate would drop by at least 80%.
> 
> But as long as we do have Democrats, we need guns to protect ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say the N'word like you really want to, guy.  It would be more honest.
Click to expand...


Talk about honesty, you have to quit listening to those voices in your head Joe.  Who said anything about race?  Are blacks the only Democrats in our country???


----------



## 2aguy

turtledude said:


> The sandy hook pawns-er parents-suing Bushmaster need to be bankrupted by the court for filing such a moronic law suit and their attorneys need to be destroyed with massive fines as well. The idiot judge who allowed that suit to go forward did so because that twit said there is a "question of fact" as to whether a legal product is legal.  She should be run out of office and disbarred




She should be impeached and removed from office...end this left wing judicial activism fast....


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or his father abandoned his kid because he was an asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the father wanted to get him committed.  Mom was the one who decided to give him guns.
Click to expand...

She didn't give them to him...............he killed her...........did she it hand them over before or after he shot her .............damn your dumb.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> You've been trying to take them for decades..........and we still own them............Your still a loser because some in this country still believe in the Constitution here........you not so much.



Actually, I used to be a right winger, until I realized how they use bullshit issues like this to keep you voting against your own economic interests.   When you don't have your gun and bible to cling to, maybe you'll start addressing the real problems.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wow, what a state of denial.  Her guns were secured, yet your mind just won't accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, they weren't secure if he got to them.
Click to expand...


Right, that's like saying a banks money wasn't secure when the robber killed the clerk and took the money.


----------



## Kondor3

2aguy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what (very) little that I understand of the case so far, the families have absolutely zero hope for a legal victory... zero.
> 
> The plaintiffs' attorneys appear to be feeding on the emotions and grief of the families and holding out the prospect of victories that have no chance of materializing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't looking for a legal victory...they are looking for millions of dollars in legal fees for the gun company defending itself......
Click to expand...

That would be the defendant's attorneys, not the plaintiff's.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Twit.......the 2a in my title is for the 2nd Amendment...I am not obsessed with guns as you can see from how rarely I post in the firearm thread......my focus is on Civil Rights and Freedom...and the ability of normal, innocent, law abiding people to be safe from harm from street criminals and socialist governments....killers both......



Guy, private gun ownership doesn't stop crime (We have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world) or government that lose their minds (which usually means the people have lost their minds, they just blame the government afterwards for giving them what they wanted.)


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most killing are committed by gang members. They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 16,000 homicides a year in this country, of which only 1800 a year a gang related.   Most of the rest are domestic arguments that got out of hand.
Click to expand...



Wrong.....8,124 gun murders in 2014...gun murder is committed by criminals with multiple convictions 90% of the time and the victims, 80% of them also have multiple criminal convictions..twit.

that means in a country of 320,000,000 people...about 1,642 are innocent people who are murdered........


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been trying to take them for decades..........and we still own them............Your still a loser because some in this country still believe in the Constitution here........you not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I used to be a right winger, until I realized how they use bullshit issues like this to keep you voting against your own economic interests.   When you don't have your gun and bible to cling to, maybe you'll start addressing the real problems.
Click to expand...

Says the poster child for gun control who will vote for the Hildabeast......yeah she has your back man............when pigs fly........


----------



## 2aguy

Kondor3 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what (very) little that I understand of the case so far, the families have absolutely zero hope for a legal victory... zero.
> 
> The plaintiffs' attorneys appear to be feeding on the emotions and grief of the families and holding out the prospect of victories that have no chance of materializing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't looking for a legal victory...they are looking for millions of dollars in legal fees for the gun company defending itself......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be the defendant's attorneys, not the plaintiff's.
Click to expand...



I mean they want to force the gun company to spend all that money in their defense.......


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> ...Actually, I used to be a right winger, until I realized how they use bullshit issues like this to keep you voting against your own economic interests.   When you don't have your gun and bible to cling to*, *maybe you'll start addressing the real problems.


Any further questions about Leftists, classmates?


----------



## Dr Grump

2aguy said:


> They aren't looking for a legal victory...they are looking for millions of dollars in legal fees for the gun company defending itself......



Hope they win and bankrupt the gun manufacturers. What a great day that would be.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, that's like saying a banks money wasn't secure when the robber killed the clerk and took the money.



Except he didnt kill her with his bare hands.  He killed her with ONE OF HER GUNS.  Which means she either left the key out where he could get it or she left the guns lying around where he could get them. 

So her guns were not secure.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been trying to take them for decades..........and we still own them............Your still a loser because some in this country still believe in the Constitution here........you not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I used to be a right winger...
Click to expand...


Now that is some funny shit!!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Iceweasel said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......
> 
> 
> 
> Shells don't eject into your face with any regularity, who could sell such a gun? I did have a .45acp round hit my forehead once, but only once. Were you doing the gansta sideways shooting?
> 
> Lanza used a handgun, not the AR. Yes, you can put a semi-auto round through your skull, why wouldn't you be able to?
> 
> As far as the OP, I believe the suit would only apply to Connecticut manufacturer, like Bushmaster (last I heard). Many of them are fleeing the north due to this sort of hostility. I don't see how a Connecticut ruling could effect another state. But as said, the suit will be a big loser for the idiots, the weapon, even if used, wasn't defective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on what, your personal theory?
> 
> Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting  | Conservative Byte
> An AR-15, or the so-called “Assault Weapon”, was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged.
Click to expand...



"Ballistic evidence located in classroom 8 is described in the Appendix at page A134, which includes a total of twenty-four rounds of 5.56 mm ammunition found, of which ten rounds were in one PMAG 30 magazine, thirteen rounds were in another such magazine and one live round was on the floor. There was a third empty PMAG 30 magazine seized. There were a total ofeighty expended 5.56 mm casings seized from classroom 8. "

http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twit.......the 2a in my title is for the 2nd Amendment...I am not obsessed with guns as you can see from how rarely I post in the firearm thread......my focus is on Civil Rights and Freedom...and the ability of normal, innocent, law abiding people to be safe from harm from street criminals and socialist governments....killers both......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, private gun ownership doesn't stop crime (We have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world) or government that lose their minds (which usually means the people have lost their minds, they just blame the government afterwards for giving them what they wanted.)
Click to expand...



The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.


----------



## Dr Grump

2aguy said:


> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.



Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
Click to expand...



Yes, moron, criminals are the problem......career criminals murder the majority of the 8,124 gun murder victims......not mass shooters....they barely kill 30 people a year.....according to Mother Jones.......

Mass shooters are not the problem....you guys only care because they make the news...while the democrats murdering peole in inner cities are only killing minorities.....which you only care about on election days.....


----------



## Tommy Tainant

I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.

From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.

But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.

It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
Click to expand...



Wrong ...... before they confiscated their guns their gun crime rates were incredibly low already because of cultural differences in their criminal sub cultures..........in fact, in Britain....after they confiscated guns their gun crime rate spiked, and then returned to the same level as before the confiscation...

And if fact...gun crime in Britain is up 4%...and they are now arming more police....

Australia...gun ownership levels are the same as they were before the confiscation...and they are seeing more gun crime...

they are catching up to us....

The only difference...our criminals pull the trigger more often to commit murder.......the criminals in Britain and Australia and Europe can get guns easily...they just don't commit murder.....


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Actually, I used to be a right winger, until I realized how they use bullshit issues like this to keep you voting against your own economic interests.   *When you don't have your gun and bible to cling to, *maybe you'll start addressing the real problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Any further questions about Leftists, classmates?
Click to expand...


NO, you'll probably remain clueless.  You were clueless when Obama first made his comments, and you are clueless now. 

Here's the thing. For 40 years, the Republicans have been waging a war on the Middle class, erasing all the progressive gains made between 1900 to 1970 that gave us the nice middle class your parents and grandparents enjoyed.  

And for 40 years, they've been playing on your religious, sexual and racial fears to get you to vote for the stuff that is screwing you out of that lifestyle.  

Ever notice taht the rich always get their tax cuts and trade treaties, but you fools never get abortion or gay marriage banned? 

Now, on the subject of guns, the wealthy have done a briliant job there.  They are selling you a product that you not only don't need, but is actually dangerous to you.  (As a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy) and they've convinced you that this makes you free, even though it will not solve any of the problems in your life...


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Talk about honesty, you have to quit listening to those voices in your head Joe. Who said anything about race? Are blacks the only Democrats in our country???



Guy, your racist characterizations speak for themselves.  It's not a liberal soccer mom robbing you at the ATM, is it?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Wilbur Right said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Joe.....................A lot of people are tired of your shit.......and those pushing these agenda's.........and those in Oregon were doing so to get litigation.................Most are not gonna go down quietly and we sure as hell aren't gonna line up for them..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep waiting for you gun nutters to act. Every day the confiscation of our beloved guns continues to grow.
> 
> Buy all you fuckers do is run your mouths on a message board.
> 
> When on the fuck are you going to DO something about this travesty?
> 
> And writing shit to Joe isn't "doing" anything. Joe isn't going to take your guns. He's waiting just like me for you and 2a guy to put YOUR guns where your mouth is.
> 
> What are you guys waiting for. The situation is bad and getting worse.
Click to expand...

Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?

What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.

Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.

We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.

I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?




How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...

The gun lobby knowst he truth....

320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....

505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.

1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...

And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....

So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....


----------



## eagle1462010

Looking at the poll numbers so far........Just like the last time............the Joe's of the world are losing badly on what people think over guns......

31 to 8 against JOE'S views.....................

Never changes does it Joe........Nobody agreed with you in the past either.......


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
Click to expand...



Their murder rates were lower than ours before they confiscated their guns....their criminals simply don't commit murder as often...but that is changing...their drug gangs are getting more violent....


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
Click to expand...



Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....

3/9/16
Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link


Homicides in England and Wales up 14%

The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*

The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

2aguy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
Click to expand...

So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
Click to expand...



Here you go...again..in gun controlled Britain...

AK-47 rifles can be bought online and smuggled into the UK in game consoles

Criminals can order military firearms on the “dark web” and have them shipped here in bits. They even get instructions on how to assemble the weapons – the type used in the Tunisian beach massacre.
Our undercover reporters were shown several black market websites selling firearms. Chillingly, the explosive Semtex was also on sale.
We launched our probe after a man admitted importing a handgun he bought on an encrypted website.
Darren Hillyer, 38, posed as a woman who wanted revenge on a paedophile ex-lover. He ordered a 9mm Luger pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition, unaware he was dealing with an undercover officer from the National Crime Agency. Hillyer and another man will be sentenced at Bristol Crown Court next month.
In a separate bust, police in Australia seized a disassembled “Uzi-style pistol” in an Xbox case bound for the UK.
---------

Seven charged after UK's 'largest ever seizure of firearms'

Seven people have been charged with firearms offences after a cache of weapons including automatic rifles and machine pistols was recovered in the largest seizure of its kind in the UK.
A total of six men and a woman are to appear before magistrates after the chilling stash of deadly weapons was discovered in holdalls and a suitcase.
Following an investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) into the suspected importation of firearms, officers seized 22 automatic assault rifles, 9 Skorpion machine pistols, 58 magazines, 2 silencers and around 1,000 live rounds of ammunition following an operation on Tuesday afternoon.
----------------


UK terror attack feared amid warnings gangs are smuggling in submachine guns

Fears of a *Tunisian style attack *on the streets of Britain have been raised after it emerged that criminal gangs have been smuggling powerful submachine guns into the country.
Security chiefs are concerned that the weapons, capable of firing 1,000 rounds a minute, could fall into the hands of would be jihadists.
A report from the National Crime Agency (NCA) published last week into serious and organised crime in the UK, found evidence of an “increased threat” of Czech made Skorpion submachine guns being imported into the UK by street gangs in London and the south east.
------------

Illegal immigrants, guns and drugs 'smuggled into Britain on light aircraft'


There are almost 20,000 light aircraft registered in the UK, and 47,000 Civil Aviation Authority-licensed pilots.

The agency said that organised criminals and terrorists use the aviation sector for crimes ranging from illegal immigration, importing hard drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines, and trafficking firearms.


----------



## Dr Grump

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> 
> Wrong ...... before they confiscated their guns their gun crime rates were incredibly low already because of cultural differences in their criminal sub cultures..........in fact, in Britain....after they confiscated guns their gun crime rate spiked, and then returned to the same level as before the confiscation...
> 
> And if fact...gun crime in Britain is up 4%...and they are now arming more police....
> 
> Australia...gun ownership levels are the same as they were before the confiscation...and they are seeing more gun crime...
> 
> they are catching up to us....
> 
> The only difference...our criminals pull the trigger more often to commit murder.......the criminals in Britain and Australia and Europe can get guns easily...they just don't commit murder.....



Again, total, utter crap. I am a NZer and have lived in Australia for 8 years. Also lived in Britain. Gun ownership rates have always been very low in these countries. Also, you have to go through much more stringent processes to own guns - police checks, sit a test for a license etc. BTW, I can still own a gun in all three countries if I wish, as long as I go through the process. 

We are seeing fuck all gun crime down here compared to you. 90 percent of gun crime in Oz is gang and drug related.

Getting a gun in Britain and Oz is a lot harder than you think. 

As for catching up, it will never happen in my lifetime


----------



## Dr Grump

2aguy said:


> Their murder rates were lower than ours before they confiscated their guns....their criminals simply don't commit murder as often...but that is changing...their drug gangs are getting more violent....



In Australia - pre 1996 when the buy back occurred - there was a random mass shooting almost every year. Since 1996 there haven't been any. Not one.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.
> 
> The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.
Click to expand...

Oh! Now we are talking going door to door? And do you think my firearms are going to be neaty lines up for confiscation?

They won't be here.

We want the Adam Lanza's and the Holme's put down like the rabid dogs they are.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
Click to expand...



Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.

Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....

The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......

We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.


----------



## Dr Grump

2aguy said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....
> 
> 3/9/16
> Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
> 
> 
> Homicides in England and Wales up 14%
> 
> The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*
> 
> The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
> The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.
Click to expand...


Hold on a sec, put it in perspective. If there were 100 gun murders in Britain last year, and there were 105 this year the rate has gone up 5 percent. If there were 9000 murders in the US last year and there were 9450 murders this year that is also 5 percent. Percentages are not relative to the actual numbers. 5 murders vs 450? Capice


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their murder rates were lower than ours before they confiscated their guns....their criminals simply don't commit murder as often...but that is changing...their drug gangs are getting more violent....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia - pre 1996 when the buy back occurred - there was a random mass shooting almost every year. Since 1996 there haven't been any. Not one.
Click to expand...



Wrong...there have been at least 3 and more than a few that would have been mass shootings if the shooter had simply decided to kill more people...last year you had two islamic terrorists with illegal guns......they could have gone to a mall, or a school...the one went to a starbucks, the other one, a 16 year old immigrant muslim shot a police office worker...had either one targeted a public place and just started shooting....they would have been mass shooters....

Not one gun law in Australia stopped the two of them last year....pure, dumb luck did......


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not? You mean out of the dozens of breeds, people buy pit bulls because of their kind nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, dude, they buy them for the same reason they buy guns.   To make up for their "shortcomings".
Click to expand...


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....
> 
> 3/9/16
> Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
> 
> 
> Homicides in England and Wales up 14%
> 
> The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*
> 
> The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
> The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a sec, put it in perspective. If there were 100 gun murders in Britain last year, and there were 105 this year the rate has gone up 5 percent. If there were 9000 murders in the US last year and there were 9450 murders this year that is also 5 percent. Percentages are not relative to the actual numbers. 5 murders vs 450? Capice
Click to expand...



Wrong.....Britain confiscated their guns and has extreme gun control....there shouldn't be a 4% increase in gun crime...also...they are finding more fully automatic weapons in the country and more criminals are shooting at police....I have posted those stories just this week....


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....
> 
> 3/9/16
> Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
> 
> 
> Homicides in England and Wales up 14%
> 
> The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*
> 
> The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
> The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a sec, put it in perspective. If there were 100 gun murders in Britain last year, and there were 105 this year the rate has gone up 5 percent. If there were 9000 murders in the US last year and there were 9450 murders this year that is also 5 percent. Percentages are not relative to the actual numbers. 5 murders vs 450? Capice
Click to expand...



Pure dumb luck stopped this mass shooting in Britain....

Here is the update, the original is below..

Yep.....this 19 year old got bombs and a glock 19 and 94 rounds of 9mm ammo on the dark web in Britain in order to murder people at the University he used to attend..........

I guess their gun control laws stopped him...right?  Or was it pure, dumb luck.....?

Newcastle teenager Liam Lyburd found guilty of planning college massacre

 teenager has been convicted of planning a massacre at his former college after stockpiling pipe bombs, a semi-automatic pistol and 94 hollow-point expanding bullets.

*Liam Lyburd, 19, from Newcastle upon Tyne, followed online instructions to build the bombs, and bought the 9mm Glock handgun and bullets from a marketplace on the darknet.*

Police found the weapons when they raided his home in November. The prosecution claimed he had planned to carry out a massacre at Newcastle College, a large further education institution with more than 18,000 students.

Lyburd studied there for about a month in September 2012. Police began investigating after reports of comments he posted online in which he discussed plans to massacre students. He had praised US high school shooters and the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik.

Yep.....pure, dumb luck....had this kid not posted his plans before the attack...there would have been a mass shooting in Britain...that was not stopped by their gun confiscation or their extreme gun control laws..........
19 years old, and he still got a pistol through their gun control laws.......
-------------

British teen sentenced to life for planned school attack

Despite some of the tightest gun control on the planet, a British man was able to acquire a handgun, extended mags and explosives as part of a plot to attack his former school.

Liam Lyburd, 19, of Newcastle upon Tyne, was sentenced to life imprisonment this week on eight charges of possessing weapons with intent to endanger life.

As noted by the BBC, Lyburd gathered a cache that included a Glock 19, three 33-round magazines, 94 hollow-point bullets, CS gas, five pipe bombs and two other improvised explosive devices despite the country’s long history of civilian arms control.

According to court documents, Lyburd planned to use the weapons in an attack on Newcastle College, from which he had been expelled two years prior for poor attendance. He was arrested last November after two Northumbria Police constables visited him at his home on a tip from an individual who encountered threats and disturbing pictures posted by Lyburd online.

Despite a defense that portrayed the reclusive man as living in a fantasy world, Lyburd was found guilty in July.

The internet-savvy teen obtained the Glock and other items through Evolution Marketplace, a successor to the Silk Road, a long-time “dark web” site in which users could buy and sell everything from illegal narcotics to munitions using Bitcoin cryptocurrency.

*In court, Lyburd testified that buying the Glock was so easy it was “like buying a bar of chocolate.”*

He obtained funds for his purchases through a complex extortion scheme in which he used online malware to infect computers, which he in turn held for ransom from their owners.


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....
> 
> 3/9/16
> Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
> 
> 
> Homicides in England and Wales up 14%
> 
> The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*
> 
> The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
> The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a sec, put it in perspective. If there were 100 gun murders in Britain last year, and there were 105 this year the rate has gone up 5 percent. If there were 9000 murders in the US last year and there were 9450 murders this year that is also 5 percent. Percentages are not relative to the actual numbers. 5 murders vs 450? Capice
Click to expand...



Here you go....story after story about increasing gun crime in Britain.....where they confiscated guns and have extreme gun control...

Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets

Scotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
-------

New figures seen by the Standard show that police seized 18 sub-machine guns from criminals in the capital last year, compared to 13 similar weapons in 2014.

*Police also revealed that sub-machine guns had been fired in London 11 times in the last 12 months, compared to seven times the year before.*

In October last year three plain clothes officers escaped injury despite being shot at by a sub-machine gun - also thought to be a Skorpion - when they were carrying out inquiries in Willesden.

Today police said there had been a “worrying” increase in the use of automatic weapons but they were seizing more of the weapons from criminals.


------------
3/9/16

Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
Birmingham shootings - police to 're-double' their efforts to tackle worrying increase

Birmingham is in the grip of a spate of gun crime according to the region’s top policeman who admitted today that shootings are happening in some areas with “concerning regularity.”

Deputy Chief Constable Dave Thompson told the West Midlands Police and Crime Board that he had not seen as many shootings in the five years that he had been with the force.

Describing how the problem of gun crime had “come back” he said he was growing increasingly concerned about the availability of weapons and ammunition on the streets.

But he also vowed to take on the gun gangsters saying he was confident that those responsible for the spate of recent shootings would be brought to justice with support from local communities.

Speaking about the rise in gun crime he said: “It’s fair to say that the problem has come back and we need to re-double our efforts.

*“We have had some very serious incidents and there has been a concerning regularity of shootings that I have not seen in the five years that I have been here.*



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

Feb. 2, 2016....

Gang turf war behind 20 Birmingham shootings, police chief reveals

Police have revealed a gang turf war is to blame for at least 20 shootings in Birmingham in less than a year.
Assistant Chief Constable Carl Foulkes will tell the Police and Crime Board on Tuesday that the spiralling number of incidents is linked to just two city gangs - but they have not been named.

He will say six of 20 “known” shootings took place over one August Bank Holiday weekend and warned tensions mounted further after four people were wounded in a drive-by shooting outside a Costcutter shop in Hockley in October.

ACC Foulkes’s report comes after new Chief Constable Dave Thompson said last month that shootings were happening in Birmingham with “concerning regularity”. He said he had not seen as many gun incidents in his five years with the force.
As well as the gang-related incidents, ACC Foulkes will also tell the Board that there were seven unrelated shootings in East Birmingham over Christmas and New Year.

*To combat the spiralling violence the force has already mounted 23 tactical firearm operations involving armed officers in January alone and has increased firearm patrols in “specific areas” across the West and Central area.*
*-*----------



Police to start armed patrols in London's gang crime hotspots

Scotland Yard is deploying armed patrols in gang crime neighbourhoods this week in a tough crackdown on youth violence.


Marksmen in armed response vehicles are being targeted to wards with high gang tensions and the highest number of gun discharges in the capital.


The move is part of a week long initiative to tackle a surge in gun discharges and gang crime offences in London.

Wow...even British teenage thugs like fully automatic weapons.....

The move comes amid concern about the number of teenage homicides in London this year and a resurgence in gang activity. 

*In another drive against firearms in the week after the Paris atrocity, police seized 17 guns - including a fully loaded Mac-10 machine gun found hidden in a house in north London, it was revealed today. *


----------



## Papageorgio

Tommy Tainant said:


> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?



Yes, stay away from America. Do not come here it is very dangerous.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....
> 
> 3/9/16
> Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
> 
> 
> Homicides in England and Wales up 14%
> 
> The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*
> 
> The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
> The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a sec, put it in perspective. If there were 100 gun murders in Britain last year, and there were 105 this year the rate has gone up 5 percent. If there were 9000 murders in the US last year and there were 9450 murders this year that is also 5 percent. Percentages are not relative to the actual numbers. 5 murders vs 450? Capice
Click to expand...

Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) | Data | Table
The stats are pretty straightforward.You are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.In fact all of Western Europe is a lot safer than the States.


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....
> 
> 3/9/16
> Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
> 
> 
> Homicides in England and Wales up 14%
> 
> The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*
> 
> The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
> The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a sec, put it in perspective. If there were 100 gun murders in Britain last year, and there were 105 this year the rate has gone up 5 percent. If there were 9000 murders in the US last year and there were 9450 murders this year that is also 5 percent. Percentages are not relative to the actual numbers. 5 murders vs 450? Capice
Click to expand...



Okay...tell me that these shooting incidents weren't stopped only through the dumb luck that the shooters just didn't decide to be mass shooters.......since they had guns, they had access to public places...and yet they just didn't shoot public places up.....how did Australian gun laws prevent these from being mass shootings....

And note the actual mass shootings at Monash.....

Okay....I have isolated shooting incidents in Australia that could just as easily have turned into mass shooting events......look below.....and the only thing that kept some of these shootings from being mass shootings is pure dumb luck...

So no, the gun confiscation in Austrulia did not stop mass shootings....dumb luck did.....since all of these shooters had no trouble getting guns.....right?


Tell me.....how is anything other than luck that kept these from being mass shootings...since the shooter obviously was able to get a gun and shoot people in gun free Australia...right?

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25 January 1996 – Hillcrest murders – Peter May shot and killed his three children, his estranged wife and her parents in the Brisbane suburb of Hillcrest before killing himself.[54]

16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.

3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.

26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.


*21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.*


*18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]*

28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.

28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[_citation needed_]

23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[_citation needed_]

8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[_citation needed_]
*9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre* – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[_citation needed_]

7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[_citation needed_

*15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]*

*27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder –* the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

*10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.*

*2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting* On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

2aguy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
Click to expand...

Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.....gun crime up 4% in Britain..the land of gun control....
> 
> 3/9/16
> Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
> 
> 
> Homicides in England and Wales up 14%
> 
> The police-recorded crime figures include a 9% rise in knife crime and *a 4% rise in gun crime, which are thought to reflect a rise in gang violence largely in London and Manchester.*
> 
> The rise in gun crime is the first recorded for eight years and includes a 10% rise in London.
> The official statisticians say that a 36% rise in sexual offences, including the highest number of rapes since 2003 – at 33,341 – reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes rather than a real surge in attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a sec, put it in perspective. If there were 100 gun murders in Britain last year, and there were 105 this year the rate has gone up 5 percent. If there were 9000 murders in the US last year and there were 9450 murders this year that is also 5 percent. Percentages are not relative to the actual numbers. 5 murders vs 450? Capice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) | Data | Table
> The stats are pretty straightforward.You are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.In fact all of Western Europe is a lot safer than the States.
Click to expand...



Yes...not because of guns...but because our criminals pull the trigger and commit murder more often.  The only thing keeping your murder rates low is that your criminals don't commit murder as often.....but that is changing.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you don't have a coherent answer, go back to your dick obsession. When you do that, we know you lost the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's really the answer at the end of the day.
> 
> You want a gun because you feel inadequate.  The gun gives you the illusion you can compensate for your inadequacies.
Click to expand...



Lame!


----------



## Dr Grump

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> Wrong...there have been at least 3 and more than a few that would have been mass shootings if the shooter had simply decided to kill more people...last year you had two islamic terrorists with illegal guns......they could have gone to a mall, or a school...the one went to a starbucks, the other one, a 16 year old immigrant muslim shot a police office worker...had either one targeted a public place and just started shooting....they would have been mass shooters....
> 
> Not one gun law in Australia stopped the two of them last year....pure, dumb luck did......



Oh, god, my Alzhiemers has kicked in. I'd forgotten I'd dealt with you before. Pointless exercise. Totally misinformed and hasn't a clue..

<walks off banging hands against head at the stupidity of engaging with such a moron>


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the gun makers lose milliions defending themselves against law suits that should have been stopped by a responsible judge...there is no merit in the case...but the left wing, anti gun judge sees this as an opportunity to destroy Bushmaster.....so he let the case go forward....they also hope to have a Supreme Court in place should the case make it all the way there...then they can destroy every gun maker in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this would be a bad thing, why?
> 
> This is an industry that thrives off of death and fear.  They've flooded our streets with weapons to the point where most of us are afraid to go out at night.  Now some of their victims are going to put them out of business.
Click to expand...

You're afraid to go out at night?

That's on you ,Slick.

What does that have to do with my firearms?


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most killing are committed by gang members. They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 16,000 homicides a year in this country, of which only 1800 a year a gang related.   Most of the rest are domestic arguments that got out of hand.
Click to expand...


I doubt that's the case.  Have you got any links to back that claim?


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
Click to expand...



First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....

The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...

The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....

the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...

And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......

Gun free zones have to end.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wow, what a state of denial.  Her guns were secured, yet your mind just won't accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, they weren't secure if he got to them.
Click to expand...

They weren't secure because he killed her. Prior to that?


----------



## boedicca

I voted "Other":  If the crime victim is a gun owner whose gun proved to be defective and did not work properly in a self-defense situation, and said owner was subsequently harmed, then Yes, said victim & gun owner should be able to sue the gun manufacturer.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People use guns to protect themselves from crime 1 - 2 million times a year. Many of those people could have been raped or killed. You math doesn't include those figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my figures do not include Unicorn farts, either.
> 
> DGU's are a lie.  They almost never happen.
Click to expand...


That's why it's pointless to argue with a douche bag like you, Joe:  you're totally out of touch with reality.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a gun gives you protection from violent Democrats. Like I stated before, the only way we can get rid of guns is if we get rid of liberals first. If we can get rid of Democrats, our violent crime rate would drop by at least 80%.
> 
> But as long as we do have Democrats, we need guns to protect ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say the N'word like you really want to, guy.  It would be more honest.
Click to expand...

And there it is... The race card.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we have to do is advertise your views on guns to the public and it would sell a million more guns.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because my opinion carries so much weight.
> 
> Guy, only 22% of the population owns guns.  You are in the minority.  And even a lot of gun owners think people like you who want to shoot government officials are kind of nuts.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about shooting gov't officials?


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Last week in a nearby community, some violent thug kidnapped his girlfriend and set her mothers house on fire. They got out of the Cleveland area for obvious reasons, and went to PA. He tried to break into somebody's home I'm assuming for a place to hide from the police. His plan would have worked fine if not for the armed homeowner who put a bullet in the SOB. The police came by and took him into custody.
> 
> Who knows what would have happened to that young girl if the homeowner was not armed. He not only saved his life, but hers as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have 33,000 gun deaths a year in this country.  Of those, only 200 a year involve citizens killing bad guys in justifiable homicides. (I don't count police shootings, because they can practically gun down a child in the street and have it called "Justified" if the child is black)
> 
> Sorry, DGU's dont happen often enough to justify the carnage.
Click to expand...


The number of people killed is a bogus leftwing douche bag way to measure DGUs.  When guns are used in self defense, they are almost never fired.  Simply pointing the weapon at the perpetrator is sufficient.


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wrong...there have been at least 3 and more than a few that would have been mass shootings if the shooter had simply decided to kill more people...last year you had two islamic terrorists with illegal guns......they could have gone to a mall, or a school...the one went to a starbucks, the other one, a 16 year old immigrant muslim shot a police office worker...had either one targeted a public place and just started shooting....they would have been mass shooters....
> 
> Not one gun law in Australia stopped the two of them last year....pure, dumb luck did......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, god, my Alzhiemers has kicked in. I'd forgotten I'd dealt with you before. Pointless exercise. Totally misinformed and hasn't a clue..
> 
> <walks off banging hands against head at the stupidity of engaging with such a moron>
Click to expand...



Yes....the truth, the facts and reality.......you can't deal with them...

Before you go....please explain how these gun crimes were stopped by Australian gun laws...and they are all after the confiscation....

And also explain how they were kept from being mass shootings by Australian gun laws.....since the shooter is the only one who made that decision not to shoot more people.......

Notice the actual mass shootings...after the confiscation...which you said did not happen...

I count about 5......and the rest.....were mass shootings stopped by dumb luck...


Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25 January 1996 – Hillcrest murders – Peter May shot and killed his three children, his estranged wife and her parents in theBrisbane suburb of Hillcrest before killing himself.[54]

16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.

*3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.*

*26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.*


*21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.*


18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[*71]*

28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.

28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[_citation needed_]

23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[_citation needed_]

*8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[*_*citation *needed_]
*9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre* – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[_citation needed_]

7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[_citation needed_

*15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]*

*27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder –* the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

*10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.*

*2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting* On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Wrong ...... before they confiscated their guns their gun crime rates were incredibly low already because of cultural differences in their criminal sub cultures..........in fact, in Britain....after they confiscated guns their gun crime rate spiked, and then returned to the same level as before the confiscation...
> 
> And if fact...gun crime in Britain is up 4%...and they are now arming more police....
> 
> Australia...gun ownership levels are the same as they were before the confiscation...and they are seeing more gun crime...
> 
> they are catching up to us....
> 
> The only difference...our criminals pull the trigger more often to commit murder.......the criminals in Britain and Australia and Europe can get guns easily...they just don't commit murder.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, total, utter crap. I am a NZer and have lived in Australia for 8 years. Also lived in Britain. Gun ownership rates have always been very low in these countries. Also, you have to go through much more stringent processes to own guns - police checks, sit a test for a license etc. BTW, I can still own a gun in all three countries if I wish, as long as I go through the process.
> 
> We are seeing fuck all gun crime down here compared to you. 90 percent of gun crime in Oz is gang and drug related.
> 
> Getting a gun in Britain and Oz is a lot harder than you think.
> 
> As for catching up, it will never happen in my lifetime
Click to expand...



90% of all gun murder is  gang and drug related here too....twit.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or his father abandoned his kid because he was an asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the father wanted to get him committed.  Mom was the one who decided to give him guns.
Click to expand...

If the father wanted him committed and attempted to do so then that is not on the manufacturer.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

2aguy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
Click to expand...

What about preventing the killers access to guns ?


----------



## 2aguy

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate has been going down as more Americans own and carry guns...that is a fact.....and the states with the most people carrying guns have seen the greatest decrease in violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total utter crap. Credible links please. Europe, Australia, Canada and NZ have never ever had the gun ownership rates that the US have had and their violent crime resulting in death stats are WAY below that of the US. Try again....
Click to expand...



Here you go twit....

Gun found every two days in Melbourne s red zone 

Police are discovering guns in cars every two days in Melbourne's north-west, which has been dubbed the "red zone" by officers concerned about a growing gangster culture in the region.

*The alarming figure, obtained from The Police Association, follows anecdotal and statistical evidence of a burgeoning gun culture among young men in the city's north-western fringe. *

Police working in the large region, which includes Broadmeadows, Sunshine and Werribee, have reported:
Advertisement

Firearm-related incidents, such as drive-by shootings, every six days.
*An increasing trend of children as young as 16 carrying guns.*
Regularly finding guns in cars, including sawn-off shotguns and an automatic machine gun, during routine car intercepts.
Guns stolen from rural homes being used in violent crime in the north-west. Some 530 guns were stolen in rural Victoria in 2013.
It comes as the Crime Statistics Agency released figures on Thursday showing an almost threefold jump in firearm offences in the north-west over the past five years, from 581 in the year to March 2011 to 1332 in the 12 months to April 2015.
*A similar trend was reported statewide, with firearm offences rising more than 50 per cent to 13,626.*
The figures follow recent high-profile shootings in which two men have been killed - one in Keysborough, the other in Altona Meadows - and significant gun seizures by police. In March, an automatic machine gun was found during a car intercept in Sunbury, and in February, an M16 assault rifle and Thureon machine gun were seized in raids on homes in the city's west.


----------



## Iceweasel

Tommy Tainant said:


> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?


How do we test for liberalism first?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been trying to take them for decades..........and we still own them............Your still a loser because some in this country still believe in the Constitution here........you not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I used to be a right winger, until I realized how they use bullshit issues like this to keep you voting against your own economic interests.   When you don't have your gun and bible to cling to, maybe you'll start addressing the real problems.
Click to expand...

The bitter clingers meme!?

Owning firearms are against my economic interests?


----------



## eagle1462010

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
Click to expand...

Only in the movies does this work............X-Men is a comic book fiction movie and scenes like this don't exist.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
Click to expand...



We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......

Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....

And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...

So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.

Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....

So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....

So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Actually, I used to be a right winger, until I realized how they use bullshit issues like this to keep you voting against your own economic interests.   When you don't have your gun and bible to cling to*, *maybe you'll start addressing the real problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Any further questions about Leftists, classmates?
Click to expand...





Who let them control the narrative?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

2aguy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
Click to expand...

You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?


----------



## eagle1462010

Throughout history there have been people like Joe..................Demanding those who don't agree with them ACCEPT their views and when they don't get their way they use the law against the people through back doors to make people ACCEPT their OPINIONS whether the rest agree or not.

They use incidents to express their Opinions to use the dead for their agenda..........

They would FORCE those who disagree to comply.......and then say,"It's For Your own good.".......

These on the bottom of the meme are like Joe........




Law abiding citizens who have not committed a crime should not be punished for the acts of criminals.

People like Joe have always pushed for gun registration which is a precursor for eventually taking the guns.......The Gov't needs a list of gun owners so when it bans them they know who has them.

It happened in Canada that way.........and WHY we should oppose them at every single step.

This new Liberal Hack Judge decision is an affront to the 2nd Amendment.  This Judge should be Impeached by the people for this decision............

This will never end..........The Joe's of the world will push it forever...............until they get their OPINIONS into law.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
Click to expand...



here is just one set of facts on gun criminals and murder...notice...the source is left wing politifact....

85 percent of shooting suspects and victims in Milwaukee have

*Non-fatal shootings:*

In non-fatal shootings in 2011, 97 percent of the 177 suspects and 86 percent of the 473 victims had at least one prior arrest. The report doesn’t say how many.

However, O’Brien said a closer analysis of non-fatal shootings during a six-week period in July and August 2011, when non-fatal shootings increased, found that suspects had an average of 7.5 prior arrests and victims had an average of about six. O’Brien said that based on her past studies, she would expect that the rest of the suspects and victims in the non-fatal shootings in 2011 had a similar number of prior arrests.

So, more than 85 percent of the people involved in non-fatal shootings had at least one prior arrest. And there’s a strong indication, though not complete numbers, that most people involved in the non-fatal shootings had at least several prior arrests.

*Homicides:*

For all homicides in 2011 -- those involving guns and those that didn’t -- 57 percent of the 72 suspects and 62 percent of the 66 homicide victims had at least six prior arrests.

O’Brien said that based on past studies she has done, most homicides involve guns and it’s unlikely that arrest records would vary greatly between the people involved in shooting homicides versus non-shooting homicides.

So, a clear majority, but less than 85 percent, of the people involved in fatal shootings likely had at least six prior arrests; although, again, the study doesn’t provide hard numbers on that point.

We asked James Alan Fox, a criminology, law and public policy professor at Northeastern University in Boston, about Flynn’s claim. He said from a national perspective, most shootings involve people with an arrest history, although he couldn’t say how extensive that history is for the typical shooting suspect or victim.

*Our rating*

Flynn said 85 percent of Milwaukee shootings "are people with extensive criminal records shooting other people with extensive criminal records."

The thrust of his statement -- that the vast majority of shooting suspects and victims have a criminal history, is accurate. But he made a specific statistical claim that isn’t fully supported by the study he cites. And as compared with charges or convictions, prior arrests as a measure of a person’s criminal record is on the lower end of the scale.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
Click to expand...



I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.

As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
Click to expand...



This British mass shooter was stopped by dumb luck......even in Great Britain...where you have confiscated guns and have extreme gun control...this 19 year old got a pistol and could have killed just as many grade schoolers in Britain if he had chosen too.......how do you limit his access....?

had he just not posted his intent on line....he would have committed a mass shooting....you guys got lucky...your gun laws didn't stop him....

Newcastle teenager Liam Lyburd found guilty of planning college massacre

teenager has been convicted of planning a massacre at his former college after stockpiling pipe bombs, a semi-automatic pistol and 94 hollow-point expanding bullets.

Liam Lyburd, 19, from Newcastle upon Tyne, followed online instructions to build the bombs, and bought the 9mm Glock handgun and bullets from a marketplace on the darknet.

Police found the weapons when they raided his home in November. The prosecution claimed he had planned to carry out a massacre at Newcastle College, a large further education institution with more than 18,000 students.

Lyburd studied there for about a month in September 2012. Police began investigating after reports of comments he posted online in which he discussed plans to massacre students. He had praised US high school shooters and the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik.

British teen sentenced to life for planned school attack





As noted by the BBC, Lyburd gathered a cache that included a Glock 19, three 33-round magazines, 94 hollow-point bullets, CS gas, five pipe bombs and two other improvised explosive devices despite the country’s long history of civilian arms control.


The internet-savvy teen obtained the Glock and other items through Evolution Marketplace, a successor to the Silk Road, a long-time “dark web” site in which users could buy and sell everything from illegal narcotics to munitions using Bitcoin cryptocurrency.

*In court, Lyburd testified that buying the Glock was so easy it was “like buying a bar of chocolate.”*

He obtained funds for his purchases through a complex extortion scheme in which he used online malware to infect computers, which he in turn held for ransom from their owners.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

2aguy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> 
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
Click to expand...



You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....

What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son.



No they didn't.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> 
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
Click to expand...



Keep in mind....our mass shootings.....are rare.....I know they are hyped...but we had 4 last year....and 2 of those were islamic terrorists...I have posted the exact number of mass shootings each year from the list generated by left wing, anti gun Mother Jones......


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> 
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
Click to expand...


you cant stop them 

not even if you abuse my right to firearms and abolish them 

the best thing you can do is to be prepared for them


----------



## jon_berzerk

Centinel said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
Click to expand...



the ar-15 is not a weapon "designed" for the battlefield


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> 
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
Click to expand...



Here is some more information to put actual perspective on the mass shooting situation here in the States...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation*



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 73.

*2015......37*
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

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 drowning*.....3,391
*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760

Deaths from mass shootings 2015..... 37*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 72 deaths by mass shooters.

How many guns are there in American hands....357 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 13 million.

Can you see that in a country with 357,000,000 milllion guns in private hands and 13 million people actually carrying guns for self defense.....what the actual mass shooting rate is actually like?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

2aguy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
Click to expand...

But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.


And when guns are demonstrated to be an unsafe product, should police departments across the country discard them and use a product that's safe?


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.



It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.  

The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government. 

The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.

The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.


----------



## eagle1462010

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *Cumbria shootings* was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself inCumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.

The series of attacks began in mid-morning in Lamplugh and moved to Frizington,Whitehaven, Egremont, Gosforth, and Seascale, sparking a major manhunt by theCumbria Constabulary, with assistance from Civil Nuclear Constabulary officers.

Bird, a 52-year-old local taxi driver, was later found dead in a wooded area, having abandoned his vehicle in the village of Boot. Two weapons that appeared to have been used in the shootings were recovered. A total of 30 different crime scenes were investigated. The event was the worst shooting incident in Britain since the Dunblane school massacre, in which 18 people died.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Tommy Tainant said:


> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?


What is shocking is for you to believe we just wave away the concerns of children being mowed down in schools.

Gun ownership is not the problem Tommy. It is mental illness and criminals committing these crimes.

We are not being complacent.

Those of us who are gun owners want those like you who categorize us with those who commit these crimes to stop blaming us for someone else's misdeeds.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...



But the British gun murder rate has always been lower than the U.S. even before the confisction.....that is because of different criminal cultures influenced by the greater society.  I am not saying that British criminals are nicer, or non violent......I remember the story of thieves holding a hot iron to a old woman's stomach to get her to give up her belonings......but British criminals, in the past, have simply not been prone to committing murder......after all....you have far more knife crime than we do...and you can kill with a knife if you want to.....

Britain is not safer than the U.S.....even according to left wing poitifact, Britain is 2 x as violent as the United States.....we have more murder....but the majority of that murder is isolated to very specific areas of our inner cities.....controlled by drug gangs.........we can go to school and theaters too..........

And that whole row with a neighbor leading to shootings....that isn't true.   The people who shoot their neighbor over a row....are the same people with a history of violence that you see in gun murder.....

If you control for violent past behavior, past criminal record, drug and alcohol abuse........then you find that gun murder in the home is not based on a gun in the home.....

Normal people without violent criminal histories and without drug and alcohol abuse and a gun in the home...are not shooting their wives or neighbors over "rows."

Again....357,000,000 guns in private hands

8,124 gun murders, 90% of the killers have criminal records.......

80% of the victims are also criminals...

That means that people shot are not neighbors fighting over a fence line.......


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.
> 
> The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.
> 
> The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.
> 
> The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> You're afraid to go out at night?
> 
> That's on you ,Slick.
> 
> What does that have to do with my firearms?



The fact your "pusher" has flooded the streets with weapons.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...



If gun laws work....why is it that your gun crime rate, until last year, was the same after the confiscation as it was before?  And last year there was a 4% increase in gun crime.

Also....Britain is now arming more police who were previously unarmed....and incidents of criminals shooting at police with fully automatic, and fully illegal weapons, has increased?

I posted those stories too......

Murder rates are not effected by access to guns....murder rates are controlled by the criminal sub cultures attitude about murder.....


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...



bs

*Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you*

Just £200 for a gun in London


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> [



Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.  

So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're afraid to go out at night?
> 
> That's on you ,Slick.
> 
> What does that have to do with my firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact your "pusher" has flooded the streets with weapons.
Click to expand...

Americans love Guns, God, Tits and Ass.........and not in that order.............

Go to Europe where your castrated ass needs to be........they will accept you there.

Here......not so much as you demand we fucking comply to your Views............not gonna happen.


----------



## Crixus

Dale Smith said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
Click to expand...



Utter and complete bullshit. You hilighted your ignorance on the issue in the first ten words you wrote. In the picture you will see two fire arms, both are mine and the evil looking black rifle is the exact same model Lanzas used which is an XM15A2 Mforgery. The ONLY way shells will hit the shooter is if they are shooting gangsta style and maybe not tnen. In one minute I can dump two 40 round magazines in thirty seconds bump firing I can do it in about half that time. In a space the size of a class room I'm pretty positive I cold hit targets pretty good. Lanzas and his mother were shooters so he would have a clue even if he was autistic on how to shoot the weapon. What's bull shit is polititions using dead kids for political purposes . The only thing worse are the conspiracy weirdos and Alex Jones types using the dead kids to sell CD's and tshirts.






[/URL

[/IMG]


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...



Your criminals want more guns...and they are getting them.....immigrant gangs are now fighting for drug territory and they are bringing in fully automatic weapons to do it....what you are  seeing is what we had back in the 90s in Florida......it is now happening in Britain...

4/19/16  auto weapons increase

Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets

Scotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
-------

New figures seen by the Standard show that police seized 18 sub-machine guns from criminals in the capital last year, compared to 13 similar weapons in 2014.

*Police also revealed that sub-machine guns had been fired in London 11 times in the last 12 months, compared to seven times the year before.*

In October last year three plain clothes officers escaped injury despite being shot at by a sub-machine gun - also thought to be a Skorpion - when they were carrying out inquiries in Willesden.

Today police said there had been a “worrying” increase in the use of automatic weapons but they were seizing more of the weapons from criminals.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
Click to expand...

You do know who that sounds like Joe........................

Think about that one for a bit Joe............


----------



## 2aguy

jon_berzerk said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bs
> 
> *Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you*
> 
> Just £200 for a gun in London
Click to expand...



Where did you find that story...is that the right date or is it a story from another year?  Great find......I am, of course, stealing it....


----------



## 2aguy

jon_berzerk said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bs
> 
> *Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you*
> 
> Just £200 for a gun in London
Click to expand...



I am going to post a quote from your story...to make it easier for the viewing audience...I hope you don't mind......

*Just £200 for a gun in London*
by JUSTIN DAVENPORT, Evening Standard



Guns are regularly changing hands in London for only £200, highlighting the frightening spiral in violent crime, says Met Commissioner Sir John Stevens today.
*
He adds that prices are tumbling because gangs have been importing huge numbers of weapons as they become ever more ruthless.*

An astonishing 600 guns are being recovered by police every year, but they admit this might be a fraction of the true number on the streets. For a little extra cash, criminals can even get hold of the fearsome Uzi sub-machinegun.

Sir John says there is clear evidence that gun gangs are spreading across London whereas a few years ago they were confined to a handful of boroughs such as Lambeth, Hackney and Brent.

Now police officers are being stationed in countries such as Romania to provide intelligence on drug and gun-smuggling routes into Britain.

The Commissioner spoke out in an interview with the Evening Standard after a fortnight of escalating violence in which estate agent Tim Robinson was murdered outside his Battersea home and a gangster was left dead outside a police station in a bullet-riddled car.



He also announced that an extra 50 detectives are to be redeployed to fight gun crime in the capital. Thirty officers will be seconded to Operation Trident, the unit which deals with black-on-black shootings, while the other 20 will work within the Serious and Organised Crime Group targeting other gun-carrying criminals.



Read more: Just £200 for a gun in London 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## jon_berzerk

2aguy said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bs
> 
> *Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you*
> 
> Just £200 for a gun in London
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you find that story...is that the right date or is it a story from another year?  Great find......I am, of course, stealing it....
Click to expand...



it is yours to use my friend


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.
> 
> The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.
> 
> The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.
> 
> The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.
Click to expand...

And I had to use that to defend my daughter and grand child from a drug addict who broke into her home. Luckily she lives close enough for me to be there before the police.

I could have put him down but chose to hold him until the police arrived. I didn't want to clean up the mess, not have my daughter living in her home where her father killed someone.

Joe. Never in my life did I expect to have to use my firearms but it was there when I needed it. 

That does not make me a nutter.

When I make references to confiscation by the government I am in no way saying I will use my firearms against our government. There are those who will when they start going door to door.

That puts me in a position to choose sides as I can guarantee that there will be a Civil War and I will be put right in the middle and will have to make that choice.

That does not make many of us nutters.

That makes us prepared for what may come in the event this occurs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> he fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home



28 percent of burglaries involve people at home: good doors-windows prevent violent crime


----------



## JoeB131

Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.  



2aguy said:


> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....



Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook.  Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers. 



2aguy said:


> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...



Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.  



2aguy said:


> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....



The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years.  That wasn't calculated, it was personal. 



2aguy said:


> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...



He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.  

So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked. 

here's the main problem.  ALL FOUR of these people were crazy. 
ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy. 

Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.

Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
Click to expand...

That comment just earned a new signature from me........

Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> And I had to use that to defend my daughter and grand child from a drug addict who broke into her home. Luckily she lives close enough for me to be there before the police.
> 
> I could have put him down but chose to hold him until the police arrived. I didn't want to clean up the mess, not have my daughter living in her home where her father killed someone.



Whatever, I dont believe you.  

Sorry, I just don't.  I simply can't believe you gun fetishists when given the opportunity to orgamically kill a bad guy would pass up on the opportunity.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.
> 
> The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.
> 
> The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.
> 
> The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.
Click to expand...



That 43 times lie again....do you never get tired of lying joe...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t. 

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8*

*In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. 

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.*

* For example, *

*53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, *

*31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and *

*17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. *

*Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

 In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

* Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5 It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

---------

*Are There Benefits of Firearms?*

What we do know, thanks to the meticulous scholarship of Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), is that the benefits of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens have been greatly underestimated. In Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991),11 myriads of scientific publications, and his latest book, Targeting Guns (1997),9 Prof. Kleck found that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.5***

Incidentally, the health care costs incurred by gun shootings have been greatly exaggerated. DIPR, in an article published in the June 1995 issue of the JMAG, estimated that the actual U.S. health care costs of treating gunshot wounds is approximately $1.5 billion which amounts to 0.2 percent of annual health care expenditures. The $20-$40 billion figure, so frequently cited by the mass media, and even medical journals, is an exaggerated estimate of lifetime productivity lost where criminals are given inflated, unrealistic life productivity estimates, as if their careers were suddenly expected to blossom into that of pillars of the community12 with projected salaries equaling those of managed care CEOs. Yet, despite these major detractions, the health advocacy establishment clings to the erroneous figures and extrapolations of Dr. Kellermann and other public health researchers, and use these erroneous figures in propounding health and gun control policies, to the detriment of public policy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> That comment just earned a new signature from me........
> 
> Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....



No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for.  In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Americans love Guns, God, Tits and Ass.........and not in that order.............
> 
> Go to Europe where your castrated ass needs to be........they will accept you there.
> 
> Here......not so much as you demand we fucking comply to your Views............not gonna happen.



Only 22% of Americans own guns.  You are in the minority.  the only problem is, the rest of us put up with your screaming tantrums like a parent who buys their kid candy to shut them up.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment just earned a new signature from me........
> 
> Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for.  In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.
Click to expand...

Who is going to supply the ATF with firearms?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
Click to expand...

A police state surely is not the answer.

These families know they have deranged members. They are the front line to prevent this.

Expecting the rest of us to just give up our firearms is not the answer.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment just earned a new signature from me........
> 
> Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for.  In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the Founders put in the 2nd Amendment...............................

For people like you and your precious ATF.............your little brown shirt army...................while you are a cheer leader on the sidelines.........calling people pussies from the safety of your little computer.......................


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook.  Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years.  That wasn't calculated, it was personal.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.
> 
> So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.
> 
> here's the main problem.  ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
> ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.
> 
> Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.
> 
> Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.
Click to expand...



Wrong on all counts joe....lanza's notes were not destroyed...they were recovered....he had giant wall to wall charts of mass shootings.....and they found he conducted recon on the 3 schools...


************************


http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook |  News21: Gun Wars

*The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.*

Lupica: Lanza plotted massacre for years

They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list.

 T*hey believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”*

The man paused and said, “They believe that (Lanza) believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points. It’s why he didn’t want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that’s why he killed himself.

-----

It really was like he was lost in one of his own sick games. That’s what we heard. That he learned something from his game that you learn in (police) school, about how if you’re moving from room to room — the way he was in that school — you have to reload before you get to the next room. Maybe he has a 30-round magazine clip, and he’s only used half of it. But he’s willing to dump 15 rounds and have a new clip before he arrives in the next room.”
*****************

----------



-------


----------



## eagle1462010

Centinel said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment just earned a new signature from me........
> 
> Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for.  In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is going to supply the ATF with firearms?
Click to expand...

The tooth fairy.....................LOL

Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........

Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or his father abandoned his kid because he was an asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the father wanted to get him committed.  Mom was the one who decided to give him guns.
Click to expand...


And you know this how?

If he was so concerned why didn't he take custody of his kid?


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............



Like a resident of a European Democracy where most citizens don't have guns and they have almost no crime?  

that's what it sounds like to me.   
You see, if we had no other countries where this had been done, you might have a point.  but the fact is, the US is kind of unique in having widespread gun ownership and a lot of fucking crazy people shooting up schools and theaters and offices.


----------



## Centinel

eagle1462010 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment just earned a new signature from me........
> 
> Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for.  In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is going to supply the ATF with firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy.....................LOL
> 
> Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........
> 
> Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.
Click to expand...

He sounds like a violent sociopath.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook.  Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years.  That wasn't calculated, it was personal.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.
> 
> So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.
> 
> here's the main problem.  ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
> ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.
> 
> Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.
> 
> Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.
Click to expand...



The other Santa Barbara shooter....

Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

*Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.*

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a resident of a European Democracy where most citizens don't have guns and they have almost no crime?
> 
> that's what it sounds like to me.
> You see, if we had no other countries where this had been done, you might have a point.  but the fact is, the US is kind of unique in having widespread gun ownership and a lot of fucking crazy people shooting up schools and theaters and offices.
Click to expand...



Britain has 2 x times the violent crime rate that we do...according to politifact...left wing nutters....


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a resident of a European Democracy where most citizens don't have guns and they have almost no crime?
> 
> that's what it sounds like to me.
> You see, if we had no other countries where this had been done, you might have a point.  but the fact is, the US is kind of unique in having widespread gun ownership and a lot of fucking crazy people shooting up schools and theaters and offices.
Click to expand...

By criminals none the less..........

The Constitution tells you to pound sand until you can stack the court...............which of course is your agenda.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> The tooth fairy.....................LOL
> 
> Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........
> 
> Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.



Guy, most laws require the use of force to enforce, you realize that, right?  

In fact, the very threat that a IRS agent might show up at his house with a gun has 2AGuy pissing himself into complete tax comliance... right after he goes around screaming about freedom and socialism and no one is going take away his penis substitute.


----------



## eagle1462010

Centinel said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment just earned a new signature from me........
> 
> Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for.  In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is going to supply the ATF with firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy.....................LOL
> 
> Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........
> 
> Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sounds like a violent sociopath.
Click to expand...

In the past he has bragged on how he'd kill us to take our guns.............I'm not kidding.........


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans love Guns, God, Tits and Ass.........and not in that order.............
> 
> Go to Europe where your castrated ass needs to be........they will accept you there.
> 
> Here......not so much as you demand we fucking comply to your Views............not gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 22% of Americans own guns.  You are in the minority.  the only problem is, the rest of us put up with your screaming tantrums like a parent who buys their kid candy to shut them up.
Click to expand...

Varies from 31%.

NBC States 1 in 3 own firearms.

Your 22% refers to those who own the majority of firearms.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook.  Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years.  That wasn't calculated, it was personal.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.
> 
> So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.
> 
> here's the main problem.  ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
> ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.
> 
> Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.
> 
> Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.
Click to expand...



More on the Santa Barbara shooter...

Santa barbara shooter ...

Do mentally ill, multiple victim killers purposefully pick targets where victims are most vulnerable?: The case of Elliot Rodger - Crime Prevention Research Center



With all the discussions about mental illness, one has to understand how much care and planning these killers engage in.  Here is something from Elliot Rodger’s manifesto that no one seems to understand the importance of:

“The first thing I had to consider was the exact date it will take place. Valentine’s Day would have been very fitting, since it was the holiday that made me feel the most miserable and insulted, the holiday in which young couples celebrated their happy lives together. The problem was that Valentine’s Day was only a month away. I needed more time than that. Also, on Valentine’s Day most young couples will be spread out in various restaurants in the city instead of being packed together at parties in Isla Vista. *Another option was Deltopia, a day in which many young people pour in from all over the state to have a spring break party on Del Playa Street. I figured this would be the perfect day to attack Isla Vista, but after watching Youtube videos of previous Deltopia parties, I saw that there were way too many cops walking around on such an event. It would be impossible to kill enough of my enemies before being dispatched by those damnable cops.*“

Rodger was apparently _*planning this attack for over 1.5 years*_, and this planning is quite common. During the fall of 2012, when he was 21-years-old he wrote:

At this point, it fully dawned on me that the possibility of having to resort to exacting this Retribution was more real than ever before. Without the prospect of becoming wealthy at a young age, I had nothing to live for now. I was going to be a virgin outcast forever. I realized that I had to start planning and preparing for the Day of Retribution, even though I hadn’t yet had any idea of what day that would be. . . .


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Britain has 2 x times the violent crime rate that we do...according to politifact...left wing nutters....



No, they don't.  
They have 600 murders a year 
We have 16,000

We lock up 2 milion people. 
They lock up about 70,000.  

They've got this figured out.  If the crooks can't get guns, they aren't going to feel really all that brave.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy.....................LOL
> 
> Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........
> 
> Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most laws require the use of force to enforce, you realize that, right?
> 
> In fact, the very threat that a IRS agent might show up at his house with a gun has 2AGuy pissing himself into complete tax comliance... right after he goes around screaming about freedom and socialism and no one is going take away his penis substitute.
Click to expand...

So the IRS are your buddies now and your standing army...................


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> More on the Santa Barbara shooter...
> 
> Santa barbara shooter ...



I thought you were talking about the Muslim couple that shot up an office.  True, we have so many fucking mass shootings it's hard to keep track of them all.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> So the IRS are your buddies now and your standing army...................



Hitler didn't hate Christians.  Hitler loved him some Jesus and his army had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
Click to expand...


The problem is we don't have much of a deterrent for those who use guns to kill people.  Guns don't kill people---people kill people. 

Mass killers will usually kill themselves, but cold blooded murderers usually do not. 

So they get convicted and sent to a place where they get three square meals a day plus snacks.  Our prisons have workout rooms, a football field, a library, and some with cable television.  Some have started families from prison as they will make accommodations for that purpose.

Yes we have the death penalty, but it usually takes well over 10 years for that penalty to get carried out.  In many cases, over 13 years.  

If we were able to exhaust all appeals within six months to execute these killers, we could probably drop our murder rate by half--especially if the executions were public and on television. 

But that's not going to happen until liberalism is just about wiped out of this country and we can get rid of the liberal judges and voters.  

Until that time, we need to defend ourselves because the criminals will never give up their guns.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the IRS are your buddies now and your standing army...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler didn't hate Christians.  Hitler loved him some Jesus and his army had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.
Click to expand...

Hitler took away everyone's guns dumb ass...........For their own protection of course.........Just like you.........Worked out fucking well didn't it...............


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook.  Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years.  That wasn't calculated, it was personal.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.
> 
> So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.
> 
> here's the main problem.  ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
> ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.
> 
> Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.
> 
> Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.
Click to expand...



If you didn't talk out of your ass you couldn't talk at all


The South Carolina church shooter wanted to attack a university...but they had armed security...

Dylann Roof 'wanted to target local university'


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...

So can we Tommy. 

There is a mall less that 2 miles from my house where there are crimes committed every weekend. Including murder.

It doesn't stop anyone from going there.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook.  Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years.  That wasn't calculated, it was personal.
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.
> 
> So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.
> 
> here's the main problem.  ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
> ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.
> 
> Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.
> 
> Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.
Click to expand...



The note from the theater shooter have it in writing that he wanted to attack an airport...but the had armed security...so he picked a gun free theater instead...


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 72712
Click to expand...



Thanks...where did you get that......since it clearly shows the gun crime in Britain was unaffected by their confiscation....


----------



## Centinel

eagle1462010 said:


> In the past he has bragged on how he'd kill us to take our guns.............I'm not kidding.........



Wow, that's some scary shit.


----------



## eagle1462010

Centinel said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past he has bragged on how he'd kill us to take our guns.............I'm not kidding.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's some scary shit.
Click to expand...

He's radical as hell on this subject.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're afraid to go out at night?
> 
> That's on you ,Slick.
> 
> What does that have to do with my firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact your "pusher" has flooded the streets with weapons.
Click to expand...

My pusher.

Don't blame me nor the gun manufacturers.

Stand down!


----------



## Dale Smith

Crixus said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Utter and complete bullshit. You hilighted your ignorance on the issue in the first ten words you wrote. In the picture you will see two fire arms, both are mine and the evil looking black rifle is the exact same model Lanzas used which is an XM15A2 Mforgery. The ONLY way shells will hit the shooter is if they are shooting gangsta style and maybe not tnen. In one minute I can dump two 40 round magazines in thirty seconds bump firing I can do it in about half that time. In a space the size of a class room I'm pretty positive I cold hit targets pretty good. Lanzas and his mother were shooters so he would have a clue even if he was autistic on how to shoot the weapon. What's bull shit is polititions using dead kids for political purposes . The only thing worse are the conspiracy weirdos and Alex Jones types using the dead kids to sell CD's and tshirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL
> 
> [/IMG]
Click to expand...

  What source do you have other than the media telling you they went to the firing range all the time because I have found that to be utter bullshit and just another lie of our corporate media....like what type of weapon was used. They said his body was found in one of the schoolrooms where he allegedly committed suicide with a handgun but then , no....he used a semi-automatic...but wait, how do we explain how he committed suicide...oh, ok, we will say he had handguns with lots of ammo....all on a kid that might have weighed 120 pounds soak and wet. I don't believe the official story....no way, no how. You do? Bully for you but I will never stop expressing my contention that this was a false flag event...don't like it? Well, you can go fuck yourself.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans love Guns, God, Tits and Ass.........and not in that order.............
> 
> Go to Europe where your castrated ass needs to be........they will accept you there.
> 
> Here......not so much as you demand we fucking comply to your Views............not gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 22% of Americans own guns.  You are in the minority.  the only problem is, the rest of us put up with your screaming tantrums like a parent who buys their kid candy to shut them up.
Click to expand...



Joe..your worst fear is coming true....women and minorities are the biggest growth areas for gun ownership and concealed carry permits...the two groups that make you feel tiny and insignificant.........and fuel your sexual gun fetish.....


----------



## eagle1462010

Joe's True Colors shining through yet again...........Like Always.........

Has his ATF army and IRS army............are you gonna add the USPS army again Joe..................

Joe has so many armies in his back pocket...................


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're afraid to go out at night?
> 
> That's on you ,Slick.
> 
> What does that have to do with my firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact your "pusher" has flooded the streets with weapons.
Click to expand...

You have no intention discussing this issue without insults and blame.

Am I to believe that you are what the other posters on this board say you are.

I'd like to believe that you are rational.

It is looking as if you are not.


----------



## Dale Smith

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............
Click to expand...

 I must have Joe in iggyland....what is his username??


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a resident of a European Democracy where most citizens don't have guns and they have almost no crime?
> 
> that's what it sounds like to me.
> You see, if we had no other countries where this had been done, you might have a point.  but the fact is, the US is kind of unique in having widespread gun ownership and a lot of fucking crazy people shooting up schools and theaters and offices.
Click to expand...



Widespread gun ownership and a decreasing violent crime and gun crime rate........


----------



## Yousaidwhat

eagle1462010 said:


> Joe's True Colors shining through yet again...........Like Always.........
> 
> Has his ATF army and IRS army............are you gonna add the USPS army again Joe..................
> 
> Joe has so many armies in his back pocket...................


Watch out for the "Kiss Army!"

I hear these geriatrics are the most dangerous.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has 2 x times the violent crime rate that we do...according to politifact...left wing nutters....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.
> They have 600 murders a year
> We have 16,000
> 
> We lock up 2 milion people.
> They lock up about 70,000.
> 
> They've got this figured out.  If the crooks can't get guns, they aren't going to feel really all that brave.
Click to expand...



Twit...murder isn't the only violent crime....and they are 2x as violent as we are....their predators just don't commit murder as often.....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Joe..your worst fear is coming true....women and minorities are the biggest growth areas for gun ownership and concealed carry permits...the two groups that make you feel tiny and insignificant.........and fuel your sexual gun fetish.....



Gun, gun ownership is on the decline. You are increasingly becoming a minority,which is why a sandy hook horrifies  you.  People start asking questions as wo why  the rest of us put up with you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dale Smith said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have Joe in iggyland....what is his username??
Click to expand...

*JoeB131 *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dr Grump said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their murder rates were lower than ours before they confiscated their guns....their criminals simply don't commit murder as often...but that is changing...their drug gangs are getting more violent....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia - pre 1996 when the buy back occurred - there was a random mass shooting almost every year. Since 1996 there haven't been any. Not one.
Click to expand...



Worked out real well too:


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the IRS are your buddies now and your standing army...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler didn't hate Christians.  Hitler loved him some Jesus and his army had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.
Click to expand...



Okay...you lost the arguments again...now it is time to lie about the nazis?....they were atheists and pagans...........hitter hated Christians and so did his followers....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Twit...murder isn't the only violent crime....and they are 2x as violent as we are....their predators just don't commit murder as often.....



It's the only one you can really quantify.  Because what counts as rape in the UK and what counts in the US are totally different. 
Also, the Brits don't slut-shame rape victims like we do in the good old U S of A.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
Click to expand...

Then... Prepare to become a statistic.


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their murder rates were lower than ours before they confiscated their guns....their criminals simply don't commit murder as often...but that is changing...their drug gangs are getting more violent....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia - pre 1996 when the buy back occurred - there was a random mass shooting almost every year. Since 1996 there haven't been any. Not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Worked out real well too:
> 
> View attachment 72713
Click to expand...



Again...the gun crime rate unaffected by confiscation and extreme gun control laws...it spiked, then return d to the same Level...thanks....need this source too....


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Okay...you lost the arguments again...now it is time to lie about the nazis?....they were atheists and pagans...........hitter hated Christians and so did his followers....



Guy, read a fucking history book. 

In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book _My New Order_, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

Hitler: As a Christian, I Feel that My Lord and Savior was a Fighter


----------



## Dale Smith

eagle1462010 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have Joe in iggyland....what is his username??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *JoeB131 *
Click to expand...



Thanks, I may need to check this clown out....he sounds hysterically funny.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about honesty, you have to quit listening to those voices in your head Joe. Who said anything about race? Are blacks the only Democrats in our country???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, your racist characterizations speak for themselves.  It's not a liberal soccer mom robbing you at the ATM, is it?
Click to expand...


I see now.  So in your opinion, only blacks rob and kill......do I have that correct?  And if so, you're pointing the finger at me and yelling race???


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twit...murder isn't the only violent crime....and they are 2x as violent as we are....their predators just don't commit murder as often.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the only one you can really quantify.  Because what counts as rape in the UK and what counts in the US are totally different.
> Also, the Brits don't slut-shame rape victims like we do in the good old U S of A.
Click to expand...



Nope...stabbing a are through the roof, the same with beatings and robbery..especially hot robberies where the victims are at home during the home invasion...farmers get it bad too because the criminals know the cops take for ever to get to the isolated farms.......

And gun crime is up 4% last year and the criminals are now shooting at police with fully automatic weapons...in gun controlled Britain........and they are now arming more of their previously unarmed police...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Actually, I used to be a right winger, until I realized how they use bullshit issues like this to keep you voting against your own economic interests.   *When you don't have your gun and bible to cling to, *maybe you'll start addressing the real problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Any further questions about Leftists, classmates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, you'll probably remain clueless.  You were clueless when Obama first made his comments, and you are clueless now.
> 
> Here's the thing. For 40 years, the Republicans have been waging a war on the Middle class, erasing all the progressive gains made between 1900 to 1970 that gave us the nice middle class your parents and grandparents enjoyed.
> 
> And for 40 years, they've been playing on your religious, sexual and racial fears to get you to vote for the stuff that is screwing you out of that lifestyle.
> 
> Ever notice taht the rich always get their tax cuts and trade treaties, but you fools never get abortion or gay marriage banned?
> 
> Now, on the subject of guns, the wealthy have done a briliant job there.  They are selling you a product that you not only don't need, but is actually dangerous to you.  (As a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy) and they've convinced you that this makes you free, even though it will not solve any of the problems in your life...
Click to expand...


There you have it folks.  Liberals believe THEY tell you what you need and don't need--not you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Oh look..........here comes some of Joe's army.......

Look out........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Tommy Tainant said:


> I would imagine that the manufacturers are nervous about having their marketing operations laid bare in a court room. We know that tobacco and alcohol have been massive conspiracies against the public and the marketing of both has been reined in.
> 
> From a distance America looks like a very violent society and I understand why people would want to have guns for self protection.
> 
> But to wave away concerns when toddlers get mown down in school is shocking.When does gun ownership become a problem ?
> The gun lobby appears to be saying that nothing needs to be done. That is a breathtakingly complacent standpoint that is racking up its own body count every year.
> 
> It is obvious that something has to change. What can be done to head off another atrocity ?



Armed security guards would be a good place to start.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...you lost the arguments again...now it is time to lie about the nazis?....they were atheists and pagans...........hitter hated Christians and so did his followers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read a fucking history book.
> 
> In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book _My New Order_, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:
> 
> My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
> 
> In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
> 
> Hitler: As a Christian, I Feel that My Lord and Savior was a Fighter
Click to expand...



Moron....Germans were barely Christian at the time of hitlers rise....and he catered to then in public....he hated Christianity and he was an atheist...his SS were pagans following a system of blood and soil worship........get a clue....


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I had to use that to defend my daughter and grand child from a drug addict who broke into her home. Luckily she lives close enough for me to be there before the police.
> 
> I could have put him down but chose to hold him until the police arrived. I didn't want to clean up the mess, not have my daughter living in her home where her father killed someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, I dont believe you.
> 
> Sorry, I just don't.  I simply can't believe you gun fetishists when given the opportunity to orgamically kill a bad guy would pass up on the opportunity.
Click to expand...

No one is expecting you to believe it.

I don't have a gun fetish.

I just happen to like to hunt and target shoot.

I was shooting long before I joined the military. The military just taught me to be more proficient in the ability to use the firearm and to use common sense and restraint in the event the time came to utilize it.

And. What makes you think I believe or care about what you say?


----------



## PK1

2aguy said:


> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....


---
Not if one takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...you lost the arguments again...now it is time to lie about the nazis?....they were atheists and pagans...........hitter hated Christians and so did his followers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read a fucking history book.
> 
> In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book _My New Order_, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:
> 
> My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
> 
> In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
> 
> Hitler: As a Christian, I Feel that My Lord and Savior was a Fighter
Click to expand...



Tell me the straight dope is Fox News....

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in _Mein Kampf_, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by _Mein Kampf_ in the schools. You really want confusion? Randy Alley, one of my best WWII history sources, noted that the SS were supposedly forbidden to believe in God--yet the military's belt buckles said "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us")! See photo, below.


----------



## Dale Smith

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...you lost the arguments again...now it is time to lie about the nazis?....they were atheists and pagans...........hitter hated Christians and so did his followers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read a fucking history book.
> 
> In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book _My New Order_, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:
> 
> My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
> 
> In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
> 
> Hitler: As a Christian, I Feel that My Lord and Savior was a Fighter
Click to expand...


Hitler was indeed a pagan and was into esoteric knowledge. He also used the Jesuit order a s a model to create his S.S. He was very much involved with the pagan catholic church and the Vatican ratlines were used to smuggle 1,000's of Nazis into the United States under Operation Paperclip....you need to read a fucking book because you don't have "the big picture" if you are going around saying that only "da gubermint" should have guns....that's not gonna happen...at least in your lifetime.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or his father abandoned his kid because he was an asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the father wanted to get him committed.  Mom was the one who decided to give him guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this how?
> 
> If he was so concerned why didn't he take custody of his kid?
Click to expand...

In Joe's world Father's don't get custody of their children.


----------



## Dale Smith

PK1 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
Click to expand...

 Really? When did that happen?You are not talking about Sandy Hoax, are ya????


----------



## 2aguy

PK1 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
Click to expand...



3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe..your worst fear is coming true....women and minorities are the biggest growth areas for gun ownership and concealed carry permits...the two groups that make you feel tiny and insignificant.........and fuel your sexual gun fetish.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun, gun ownership is on the decline. You are increasingly becoming a minority,which is why a sandy hook horrifies  you.  People start asking questions as wo why  the rest of us put up with you.
Click to expand...


It's less the amount of guns than it is the law giving us more and more liberty to use our firearms when needed. 

A gun doesn't do you any good if you live in a state that is going to lock you up for using it in self-defense.  

Years ago I belonged to a local blog when our legislators were considering CCW's for Ohioans.  I got into a discussion with one of your cohorts.  He asked why I wanted to see the passage of CCW laws.  I told him for many reasons, but for one, my mother never drove a car in her life.  She likes to walk to the store, church, neighbors and sometimes just for exercise.  

So he asked if the law were to pass, would my elderly mother carry a firearm?  

To that I replied "No she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that." 

One of the reasons unarmed citizens in our state are safer today is because the criminal has no idea if they are carrying a firearm to protect themselves.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...you lost the arguments again...now it is time to lie about the nazis?....they were atheists and pagans...........hitter hated Christians and so did his followers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, read a fucking history book.
> 
> In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book _My New Order_, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:
> 
> My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
> 
> In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
> 
> Hitler: As a Christian, I Feel that My Lord and Savior was a Fighter
Click to expand...



More from the straight dope.....

That said, we can move on to some other relevant info. Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, "The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives," by saying: ""They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies." In other words, definitely non-Christian. 

*Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."*


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is we don't have much of a deterrent for those who use guns to kill people.  Guns don't kill people---people kill people.
> 
> Mass killers will usually kill themselves, but cold blooded murderers usually do not.
> 
> So they get convicted and sent to a place where they get three square meals a day plus snacks.  Our prisons have workout rooms, a football field, a library, and some with cable television.  Some have started families from prison as they will make accommodations for that purpose.
> 
> Yes we have the death penalty, but it usually takes well over 10 years for that penalty to get carried out.  In many cases, over 13 years.
> 
> If we were able to exhaust all appeals within six months to execute these killers, we could probably drop our murder rate by half--especially if the executions were public and on television.
> 
> But that's not going to happen until liberalism is just about wiped out of this country and we can get rid of the liberal judges and voters.
> 
> Until that time, we need to defend ourselves because the criminals will never give up their guns.
Click to expand...

Prisons should be hell holes. Chain gangs and minimal amenities.

No TV. No gyms. Nothing.

Hard labor. 16 hrs a day.


----------



## 2aguy

Hitler was a socialist greenie...an eco freak.........


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Centinel said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past he has bragged on how he'd kill us to take our guns.............I'm not kidding.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's some scary shit.
Click to expand...

Not so scary.

He knows he can't and won't confiscate our firearms.

He just wants to sick the big bad government against law abiding citizens.

Doesn't want to address the issue.

BIG BAD JOE!


----------



## PK1

2aguy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?
Click to expand...

---
The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
.


----------



## 2aguy

PK1 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
> .
Click to expand...



Nope......when you have 1,500,000 times a year that Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack, the one time an AR-15 was used to attack a school is tragic.....but when there are 3,750,000 millioln AR-15s in the country...and you try to use one AR-15 that is used illegally....your post is stupid.....


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Dale Smith said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do know who that sounds like Joe........................
> 
> Think about that one for a bit Joe............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have Joe in iggyland....what is his username??
Click to expand...

Nazi Joe!?


----------



## PK1

2aguy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...  when there are 3,750,000 millioln AR-15s in the country...and you try to use one AR-15 that is used illegally....your post is stupid.....
Click to expand...

---
Stupid says, stupid is.
You doubt that most of the families who's 6-yr-old was slaughtered would think your "shit happens" attitude is callous?
.


----------



## Skull Pilot

PK1 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
> .
Click to expand...


Life is random.

You could decide not to kill a bee today. Tomorrow that same bee could sting a baby and that baby could die of anaphylaxis 

So do you kill every bee you see?  Or do you let it live?  If you do let it live are you responsible for any deaths that bee may cause?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Nope...stabbing a are through the roof, the same with beatings and robbery..especially hot robberies where the victims are at home during the home invasion...farmers get it bad too because the criminals know the cops take for ever to get to the isolated farms.......
> 
> And gun crime is up 4% last year and the criminals are now shooting at police with fully automatic weapons...in gun controlled Britain........and they are now arming more of their previously unarmed police...



Guy, I doubt you  even know what what you are talking about. Again,put down the Bong and the NRA talking points. 

Most Europeans are horrified by the amount of crime we have here.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Nope...stabbing a are through the roof, the same with beatings and robbery..especially hot robberies where the victims are at home during the home invasion...farmers get it bad too because the criminals know the cops take for ever to get to the isolated farms.......
> 
> And gun crime is up 4% last year and the criminals are now shooting at police with fully automatic weapons...in gun controlled Britain........and they are now arming more of their previously unarmed police...



Guy, I doubt you  even know what what you are talking about. Again,put down the Bong and the NRA talking points. 

Most Europeans are horrified by the amount of crime we have here.


----------



## PK1

Skull Pilot said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is random.
> 
> You could decide not to kill a bee today. Tomorrow that same bee could sting a baby and that baby could die of anaphylaxis
> 
> So do you kill every bee you see?  Or do you let it live?  If you do let it live are you responsible for any deaths that bee may cause?
Click to expand...

---
Shit happens in nature, i agree.
Weapons are needed for self-defense, i agree.
I'm wondering how lethal a weapon has to be for civilian use.
Maybe a plastic explosive should be protected under the 2nd ...
.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron....Germans were barely Christian at the time of hitlers rise....and he catered to then in public....he hated Christianity and he was an atheist...his SS were pagans following a system of blood and soil worship........get a clue....



If he wasn't Christian, why didn't the Pope denounce him. 

You see, the thing is, anti-Semitism isn't an anomoly in Christianity, it's a design feature.  The Jews killed Jesus and rejected God, so they deserve whatever happens to them.   Martin Luther, the father of German Protestantism, wrote a book called "The Jews and their Lies".  Germany held Passion Plays every year blaming the Jews for killing Jesus.  

Hitler and his boys did not exist in a vacuum.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...stabbing a are through the roof, the same with beatings and robbery..especially hot robberies where the victims are at home during the home invasion...farmers get it bad too because the criminals know the cops take for ever to get to the isolated farms.......
> 
> And gun crime is up 4% last year and the criminals are now shooting at police with fully automatic weapons...in gun controlled Britain........and they are now arming more of their previously unarmed police...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I doubt you  even know what what you are talking about. Again,put down the Bong and the NRA talking points.
> 
> Most Europeans are horrified by the amount of crime we have here.
Click to expand...

Then they can stay in Europe and mind their own dammed business.

This is not Europe.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...stabbing a are through the roof, the same with beatings and robbery..especially hot robberies where the victims are at home during the home invasion...farmers get it bad too because the criminals know the cops take for ever to get to the isolated farms.......
> 
> And gun crime is up 4% last year and the criminals are now shooting at police with fully automatic weapons...in gun controlled Britain........and they are now arming more of their previously unarmed police...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I doubt you  even know what what you are talking about. Again,put down the Bong and the NRA talking points.
> 
> Most Europeans are horrified by the amount of crime we have here.
Click to expand...

Most Americans are horrified at the amount of Cultural Suicide they have inflicted upon themselves in Europe, so, we're even.


----------



## Papageorgio

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans love Guns, God, Tits and Ass.........and not in that order.............
> 
> Go to Europe where your castrated ass needs to be........they will accept you there.
> 
> Here......not so much as you demand we fucking comply to your Views............not gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 22% of Americans own guns.  You are in the minority.  the only problem is, the rest of us put up with your screaming tantrums like a parent who buys their kid candy to shut them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Varies from 31%.
> 
> NBC States 1 in 3 own firearms.
> 
> Your 22% refers to those who own the majority of firearms.
Click to expand...


Who Owns Guns in America?

Just another source that proves Joey Boi is lying.


----------



## Crixus

Dale Smith said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Utter and complete bullshit. You hilighted your ignorance on the issue in the first ten words you wrote. In the picture you will see two fire arms, both are mine and the evil looking black rifle is the exact same model Lanzas used which is an XM15A2 Mforgery. The ONLY way shells will hit the shooter is if they are shooting gangsta style and maybe not tnen. In one minute I can dump two 40 round magazines in thirty seconds bump firing I can do it in about half that time. In a space the size of a class room I'm pretty positive I cold hit targets pretty good. Lanzas and his mother were shooters so he would have a clue even if he was autistic on how to shoot the weapon. What's bull shit is polititions using dead kids for political purposes . The only thing worse are the conspiracy weirdos and Alex Jones types using the dead kids to sell CD's and tshirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What source do you have other than the media telling you they went to the firing range all the time because I have found that to be utter bullshit and just another lie of our corporate media....like what type of weapon was used. They said his body was found in one of the schoolrooms where he allegedly committed suicide with a handgun but then , no....he used a semi-automatic...but wait, how do we explain how he committed suicide...oh, ok, we will say he had handguns with lots of ammo....all on a kid that might have weighed 120 pounds soak and wet. I don't believe the official story....no way, no how. You do? Bully for you but I will never stop expressing my contention that this was a false flag event...don't like it? Well, you can go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


On the fire arms? My source is the Bushmaster XM15-A2 sitting in my closet with the firing pin removed. I believe it was cloudy in the reports because we have a media that gets a hard on every time children get shot up by a psycho that's what I believe. They are in such a hurry to be the first outlet to show kids dead and other crying. I further believe that the conspiracy wackos also get hard for the same reason with the added bonus of being able to sell recordings of cops and EMS responding. So,  everything that is "proof"  of the alleged "falsflag" operation is bull crap starting with the crap you posted about the weapons. Adam Lanza may have been a wee lad, the AR platform is ideal for people like that. Smallish gals just love them. Look deeper. It's not One source reporting your "proof" what it is is several cops talking and there is also the fire department and EMS with the disgusting ghouls in the media humping the leg of an atrocity for TV ratings. In my mind the construction wackos are not much better.


----------



## Papageorgio

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...stabbing a are through the roof, the same with beatings and robbery..especially hot robberies where the victims are at home during the home invasion...farmers get it bad too because the criminals know the cops take for ever to get to the isolated farms.......
> 
> And gun crime is up 4% last year and the criminals are now shooting at police with fully automatic weapons...in gun controlled Britain........and they are now arming more of their previously unarmed police...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I doubt you  even know what what you are talking about. Again,put down the Bong and the NRA talking points.
> 
> Most Europeans are horrified by the amount of crime we have here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans are horrified at the amount of Cultural Suicide they have inflicted upon themselves in Europe, so, we're even.
Click to expand...


I'm horrified that people in Europe let terrorists walk their streets.


----------



## GHook93

Tipsycatlover said:


> They will lose.


Not the point. It will be expensive to defend and the ACLU and other anti-gun nutz will constantly bring frivolous suit after another to try to bankrupt the gun industry.

However the bigger danger to the 2nd amendment is the SCJ Hillary selects.


----------



## Contumacious

Contumacious said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure harrassment of Remington Arms
> 
> 
> The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that the *"Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903*" is Constitutional . So I fail to see the reason the scumbag "judge" is going to force Remington Arms to waste money defending itself.
> 
> *Rodriguez v. Testa, 993 A.2d 955, 296 Conn. 1 (Conn. 05/04/2010)*
> 
> 
> *Any ruling concluding that the governments can designate what firearms can be marketed to civilians  will be IGNORED.
> 
> 
> .*
Click to expand...



This is pure harrassment of Remington Arms


The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that the *"Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903*" is Constitutional . So I fail to see the reason the scumbag "judge" is going to force Remington Arms to waste money defending itself.

*Rodriguez v. Testa, 993 A.2d 955, 296 Conn. 1 (Conn. 05/04/2010)*


*Any ruling concluding that the governments can designate what firearms can be marketed to civilians will be IGNORED.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

PK1 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is random.
> 
> You could decide not to kill a bee today. Tomorrow that same bee could sting a baby and that baby could die of anaphylaxis
> 
> So do you kill every bee you see?  Or do you let it live?  If you do let it live are you responsible for any deaths that bee may cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Shit happens in nature, i agree.
> Weapons are needed for self-defense, i agree.
> I'm wondering how lethal a weapon has to be for civilian use.
> Maybe a plastic explosive should be protected under the 2nd ...
> .
Click to expand...


Way more children die in car accidents every year than they do guns.  Doesn't mean we should make it illegal for children to be in cars. 

The real problem here is that people on your side refuses to acknowledge that it doesn't matter how many or what kind of laws we have against firearms, the criminals will always have them. They are not going to obey the law, that's why they are criminals in the first place. 

Now if you can come up with an idea of how to stop criminals getting guns, then lets first apply that method to the terrible drug problem we have in this country and see if it works with narcotics.  

Until that time, we are all going to have to accept the FACT that criminals will be armed, and there is nothing we can do about that.


----------



## Dale Smith

Crixus said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've heard about the "hoax" theory before.  I don't really believe that.  But, having said that, just because some loon freaks out and kills people, that is no reason to take rights or restrict rights regarding law abiding citizens.  You don't blame the tool.  It isn't the fault of the tool used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fired the same type of gun that Lanza allegedly used......the shells fly up in your face which is why you wear googles at the firing range. It took me five minutes to empty a 12 bullet clip when I was aiming at a target 15 feet away and only hit the target 7 times and I got the webbing between my thumb and forefinger caught inbetween the barrel....bleed like a stuck hog....you expect me to believe that this kid that suffered from a form of autism was able to get off over 100 shots with pinpoint accuracy in a ten minute span??? I don't buy this shit at all...I don;'t believe ANYTHING about Sandy Hoax.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Utter and complete bullshit. You hilighted your ignorance on the issue in the first ten words you wrote. In the picture you will see two fire arms, both are mine and the evil looking black rifle is the exact same model Lanzas used which is an XM15A2 Mforgery. The ONLY way shells will hit the shooter is if they are shooting gangsta style and maybe not tnen. In one minute I can dump two 40 round magazines in thirty seconds bump firing I can do it in about half that time. In a space the size of a class room I'm pretty positive I cold hit targets pretty good. Lanzas and his mother were shooters so he would have a clue even if he was autistic on how to shoot the weapon. What's bull shit is polititions using dead kids for political purposes . The only thing worse are the conspiracy weirdos and Alex Jones types using the dead kids to sell CD's and tshirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What source do you have other than the media telling you they went to the firing range all the time because I have found that to be utter bullshit and just another lie of our corporate media....like what type of weapon was used. They said his body was found in one of the schoolrooms where he allegedly committed suicide with a handgun but then , no....he used a semi-automatic...but wait, how do we explain how he committed suicide...oh, ok, we will say he had handguns with lots of ammo....all on a kid that might have weighed 120 pounds soak and wet. I don't believe the official story....no way, no how. You do? Bully for you but I will never stop expressing my contention that this was a false flag event...don't like it? Well, you can go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the fire arms? My source is the Bushmaster XM15-A2 sitting in my closet with the firing pin removed. I believe it was cloudy in the reports because we have a media that gets a hard on every time children get shot up by a psycho that's what I believe. They are in such a hurry to be the first outlet to show kids dead and other crying. I further believe that the conspiracy wackos also get hard for the same reason with the added bonus of being able to sell recordings of cops and EMS responding. So,  everything that is "proof"  of the alleged "falsflag" operation is bull crap starting with the crap you posted about the weapons. Adam Lanza may have been a wee lad, the AR platform is ideal for people like that. Smallish gals just love them. Look deeper. It's not One source reporting your "proof" what it is is several cops talking and there is also the fire department and EMS with the disgusting ghouls in the media humping the leg of an atrocity for TV ratings. In my mind the construction wackos are not much better.
Click to expand...


No, which source did you use to find out that they had switched the story from using a handgun to using a semi and then using that semi to kill himself? Hmmm? #1 I don't believe a fucking thing the lamestream media tells me #2 I don't believe a damn thing the corporate "gubermint" tells me either. Sandy Hoax reeks for a litany of reasons and it does not stand up to even basic scrutiny. People need to wake the fuck up and realize that they have been duped.


----------



## Skull Pilot

PK1 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is random.
> 
> You could decide not to kill a bee today. Tomorrow that same bee could sting a baby and that baby could die of anaphylaxis
> 
> So do you kill every bee you see?  Or do you let it live?  If you do let it live are you responsible for any deaths that bee may cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Shit happens in nature, i agree.
> Weapons are needed for self-defense, i agree.
> I'm wondering how lethal a weapon has to be for civilian use.
> Maybe a plastic explosive should be protected under the 2nd ...
> .
Click to expand...


All kinds of things are lethal.  Even "nonlethal" weapons can kill.

Whether or not a weapon is lethal is entirely up to the person wielding it

Explosives are not generally recognized as firearms and are not the best choice for defense


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Skull Pilot said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Unless a boy takes an AR-15 out of the home to slaughter a couple dozen children & adults.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,750,000 millions ARE-15s in private hands....one is misused.......can you see how dumb your post is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> The 2 dozen families who lost their 6-yr-old may disagree with your attitude "Shit happens".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is random.
> 
> You could decide not to kill a bee today. Tomorrow that same bee could sting a baby and that baby could die of anaphylaxis
> 
> So do you kill every bee you see?  Or do you let it live?  If you do let it live are you responsible for any deaths that bee may cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Shit happens in nature, i agree.
> Weapons are needed for self-defense, i agree.
> I'm wondering how lethal a weapon has to be for civilian use.
> Maybe a plastic explosive should be protected under the 2nd ...
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All kinds of things are lethal.  Even "nonlethal" weapons can kill.
> 
> Whether or not a weapon is lethal is entirely up to the person wielding it
> 
> Explosives are not generally recognized as firearms and are not the best choice for defense
Click to expand...

But they offer a dramatic explosive display.


----------



## Cecilie1200

So if I understand the OP correctly, the parents' argument is that their children wouldn't have been killed if _that particular gun_ had not been marketed to civilians?  He would have just said, "Oh, I can't have a 'military-style' weapon, so I guess I won't bother to shoot up the school at all", or a different gun wouldn't have been lethal, or exactly what is the thinking we're supposed to be buying into here?


----------



## ChrisL

Timmy said:


> So they do have ads . We've cleared that up and I was right .
> 
> And no I don't think gun companies are liable for making guns .
> 
> No I do t think that just producing alcohol makes you liable for drunk drivers .
> 
> And I don't respect a dead lady who bought her psycho son all kinds a guns and took him shooting n shit.
> 
> You didn't answer my question on if she was in any way responsible .



She had the guns locked up in a safe.  I'm sure she never thought her own son was going to murder her.  It's a tragedy that this happened, and the only one to blame is the one who pulled the trigger.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we have to do is advertise your views on guns to the public and it would sell a million more guns.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because my opinion carries so much weight.
> 
> Guy, only 22% of the population owns guns.  You are in the minority.  And even a lot of gun owners think people like you who want to shoot government officials are kind of nuts.
Click to expand...






The number is more than 30% and it is growing thanks to idiots like you.


----------



## ChrisL

Harry Dresden said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
Click to expand...


That's really not the point.


----------



## ChrisL

Harry Dresden said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
Click to expand...


Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you sue if a guy beats someone to death with his fists?
Click to expand...


Well, I guess his parents since they "manufactured" him.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The judge who hears the case will throw it out if they can read.  The decision was to allow the case to go to trial, that is the stupid part. It will be a defense attorneys first motion to request summary judgement based on the federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the courts can rule the federal law unconstitutional.  Granting a blanket immunity for an industry is insane.
> 
> So let's consider what will happen if the plaintiffs DO prevail here.  Bushmaster will pay out a shitload of money.  Then a lot of other people will sue other gun companies for their lost loved ones, and the gun industry will settle a lot of those out of court because they'd be too expensive to litigate.
> 
> THEN you will see the gun industry clean up its act.  They'll be the ones driving comprehensive background checks for buyers and sellers.
> 
> Can't see this as a bad thing.
Click to expand...


There is no "blanket immunity."  If the product was defective and someone was harmed because of THAT, then a lawsuit can and should be brought.  There was nothing wrong with the product.  It was the person using it that was defective.  

This lawsuit won't go anywhere.  The manufacturers did nothing wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Non-disclosure that they would not say what they had seen or had not seen. I am always amused by people like you that just assume that everything they see on TV is reality. I am also amused by people that haven't done 10 minutes of research and reading that lamely attempt to marginalize someone that has spent hundreds and hundreds of hours looking for documentation and information both pro and con. I believed that it actually happened at first and I was going to try and prove the trolls wrong. But the more I looked into this, the more questions than answers was all I found. You believe that your beloved "gubermint" would never lie to you and that is fine....but I know that they lie with impunity and often with great gusto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix crazy, dude.  I've dealt with all sorts of nuts on the internet. JFK conspiracy theorists, 9/11 Truthers, Waco Nuts, Birthers, not to mention whacks who think things about Aliens and Chem Trails.  And usually you documentation and information is repeating what other nuts have posted or reposted on the internet.
Click to expand...


^^^^

"You can't fix crazy . . . "

No shit.  Lol.  Exhibit A.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
Click to expand...


Of course he was a criminal.  He killed people.  Killing innocent people = murderer = criminal.


----------



## ChrisL

The GUN didn't make Lanza kill people.  If he hadn't been able to steal his mother's gun, perhaps he would have made a bomb to carry out his sick fantasy.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here.  Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal.  he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.
Click to expand...


Criminals aren't the problem?  Could you be a bigger loser?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, the Alcohol companies aren't in any real danger because they are responsible corporate citizens.  The gun industry is in the crosshairs because they are manifestly irresponsible.
Click to expand...


How so?  Why don't you go into that a little more, please?


----------



## ChrisL

Iceweasel said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......
> 
> 
> 
> Shells don't eject into your face with any regularity, who could sell such a gun? I did have a .45acp round hit my forehead once, but only once. Were you doing the gansta sideways shooting?
> 
> Lanza used a handgun, not the AR. Yes, you can put a semi-auto round through your skull, why wouldn't you be able to?
> 
> As far as the OP, I believe the suit would only apply to Connecticut manufacturer, like Bushmaster (last I heard). Many of them are fleeing the north due to this sort of hostility. I don't see how a Connecticut ruling could effect another state. But as said, the suit will be a big loser for the idiots, the weapon, even if used, wasn't defective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on what, your personal theory?
> 
> Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting  | Conservative Byte
> An AR-15, or the so-called “Assault Weapon”, was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah.  Now that you mention that, I remember hearing something about that.


----------



## Harry Dresden

ChrisL said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really not the point.
Click to expand...

you did not get my point did ya?.....


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
Click to expand...


And what leads you to make this "diagnosis?"  Please share all you know about her mental health and her past medical history since you seem to have examined her and made a diagnosis.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
Click to expand...


I wonder where Joey got his internet psychiatry degree?  From a Cracker Jack box?


----------



## ChrisL

Harry Dresden said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really not the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you did not get my point did ya?.....
Click to expand...


This thread is not about diabetes.  The point is lost on you.  It was sarcasm.  Now, talk about the topic or get lost.


----------



## ChrisL

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.
> 
> Okay, time to talk seriously.  This is about an industry and its conduct.  There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.
> 
> Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again....
> 
> 3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands....the year of the Sandy Hook shooting how many were used in mass shootings....?  1.
> 
> So who are all these mentally unstable people getting these AR-15s.....if they are mentally unstable they sure as hell aren't showing it by their actions twit.
Click to expand...


Most LEGAL gun owners never shoot anyone.  It is the gang members and the black market that is mostly responsible for "illegal" weapons in the hands of people who should not have them.  And people like Joey are doing their best to create an underground market for guns which would make them nearly impossible to trace and would totally "backfire" (pun intended ).


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
Click to expand...


They don't forget.  They intentionally lie.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the families of those hit and killed by drunk drivers be able to sue the alcohol companies? Yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the Alcohol companies take reasonable precautions to keep people from driving drunk, no.
> 
> The gun industry goes out of its way to get guns to people like Nancy Lanza and Joker Holmes.  This is a deliberate marketing decision.  The more crime you have, the more people like ray and 2aguy who piss themselves over the thought of the scary negro breaking into their house want more guns, too.
> 
> You see, you have to ask yourself who gave Nancy the idea that she really needed an AR-15, a weapon designed to fight the Vietcong in the jungles of Vietnam.  What could have possibly possessed her of the notion she needed that kind of firepower.
> 
> She wasn't buying it to defend herself from preschoolers.
Click to expand...


And murdering people is already against the law.  Derp.  Should the gun manufacturers put labels on guns that say "don't murder people with this product?"  Would that make you feel any better?  Wow, I'll bet that would make a HUGE difference too.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one gave lanza a gun....he committed murder to get his......twit. Perhaps we should make murder illegal....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we don't sell it to a woman who thinks the best way to treat a child with a serious mental disorder is to take him to the shooting range, show him how to use a gun, and then let him play violent videogames for hours on end.
> 
> And if someone had bothered to do  any kind of background check on her, they'd have found it out, just like the news media found it out within DAYS of looking into it.
Click to expand...


Adam Lanza was 20 years old when he went on his killing spree.  He was a LEGAL adult.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay moron....a quick primer on laws and how they work, especially in relation to guns and gun laws....read it...learn something...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm about 30 seconds from putting you on ignore because all you do is spam these threads instead of having a nice discussion.
Click to expand...


This coming from the guy who calls other posters "tiny dick."


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Not one. And no they don't. There is no legal precedent anywhere in the world for suing a manufacturer for the criminal misuse of their product. It was tried in Israel a few years back but the judge there rightfully reasoned that to allow such a abuse of the legal system would lead to the collapse of that legal system and ultimately the social fabric of the country.
> 
> So, if your goal is to cause the destruction of the legal system, congrats. You are well on your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are ignoring the tobacco settlement as a precedent.
> 
> The Tobacco industry WAS encouraging the illegal use of it's products.  They were intentionally marketing their product to underaged children because they knew from research nobody starts smoking when they are 30.  The lawsuits bore this out when they looked at internal documents.
> 
> Now, here you have a gun industry that is intentionally allowing criminals to get guns, so that guys like 2AGuy and Ray piss themselves at the thought of a scary Negro and want a gun, too.  The market to nuts like Nancy Lanza who think the Zombie apocolypse is coming. And when someone says, "Hey, maybe we need some sensible gun control", they double down on "Obama's gonna take your guns" to boost sales.
> 
> I simply cannot think of a more manifestly irresponsible industry.
Click to expand...


And children STILL get cigarettes and still smoke.


----------



## ChrisL

2aguy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable.  She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him.  The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him.  Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
> When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it's not.   again...3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands......1 was used to kill at Sandy Hook.......only anti-gun nuts label that a problem.
Click to expand...


Mass shootings are a rare occurrence, only 0.1% of ALL murders are mass shootings.  It's only because the media and the government use hyperbole whenever one incident occurs that they seem "commonplace."


----------



## ChrisL

2aguy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
Click to expand...


And the study from 2010 that Obama requested showed the same results.  These loons don't care about the honest law abiding citizens in the United States.  It's like they are on the side of the criminals.


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
Click to expand...


He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.


----------



## ChrisL

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....
> 
> a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......
> 
> vs.
> 
> 8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......
> 
> So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?
> 
> Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your study?
> 
> also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....
Click to expand...


They also include suicides in those stats, and the classify 17 to 20-year-old gangbangers as "children."


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, AFTER she showed him how to use them.
> AFTER she took him to a gun range
> AFTER she let him play violent video games for hours
> AFTER she started talking openly about having him committed without securing her guns first.
Click to expand...


Her guns were locked in a safe, so she did have the secured.  She had no way of knowing that her son would flip out and kill her.


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they can sue.
> 
> but people beat the cigarette companies, too, for making a product that was inherently dangerous.
> 
> will they win? never know. but they must have drafted their case really well.
Click to expand...


Yet, way more people die from smoking related illnesses than from being shot.  Hmm.


----------



## Dale Smith

Here are things that I have found that do not make sense about this alleged event.


#1: 2 or 3 people were arrested around Sandy Hook school, one chased into woods and caught by police on helicopter footage then put in FRONT seat of cop car, one caught in front of firehouse as seen by kid from class, report of fleeing mini-van in area not caught. These men were NOT Chris Manfredonia, who were they? This helicopter footage was all over the news for everyone to see. I suspect that the footage was what was shot at the St Rose of Lima school where they were conducting a live shooter drill that very day.

#2: Police audio scanner ordering "take" or "end" "the life of Adam" while police were on the front lawn - before they had reached the classroom.

#3: Vicki Soto had a FB page posted for her with green ribbons on Dec 10, before the event, did she hire psychics?

#4: United Way posted a condolence page for Sandy Hook days before, did they hire the same psychics? They also would not allow their books to be inspected concerning the donations at their Connecticut and actually called state troopers to keep Wolfgang Halbig from going inside their office.

#5: A teacher saw 2 shadows pass her room before shooting, who were they? No explanation offered. Looks like they had a hard time keeping to the script.

#6: Principal Dawn Hochsprung—In an embarrassing fiction, The Newtown Bee reported on 14 December 2013 that Dawn Hochsprung, the Sandy Hook school principal, told the paper that a masked man had entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots – more than she could count – that went “on and on.” Of course, Dawn Hochsprung was allegedly killed by Adam Lanza and so could not easily have provided this statement. In fact, Dawn was said to have acted heroically, dying while lunging at the gunman—although one wonders who witnessed and reported this act of heroism. On 17 December 2013, The Bee retracted this "erroneous" report and apologized. Who was this person they talked to??

#7: School nurse of 15 years interviewed on TV, talked about Nancy as a wonderful teacher, who was this person, since the story is Nancy was never a teacher? 

#8: Ryan reported involved due to his VALID ID in his brothers pocket - the brother he had not seen in years, how did this happen? He had not seen his brother in YEARS, valid ID's go bad within a few years, how did Adam get Ryans valid ID?

#9: Ryans girlfriend reported kidnapped. Body reported found in NJ. What happened there, who died? Where is Ryans GF? Where is Ryan in fact?

#10: Robby Parker was caught on film LAUGHING before hearing "we are rolling" when he proceeds to ask if he should read the script, then begins to fake cry, is this natural for someone who JUST lost their child? This real footage is available for those interested on the internet (you tube).

#11: Pozner's family was posting a donation page and having rival donation pages pulled off the net the day of the event, but before confirmation of his death, is that natural?

#12: No parents have red eyes, no parents have bags under their eyes, no parents seem distraught, no parents seem exhausted, none are hysterical, no siblings are crying - is it natural for even CHILDREN to not cry? I have seen some of this video, and anyone interested can see this on you tube.

#13: A mother had 7 pages taken down for using illegally taken pictures of her still living daughter and using them as a supposed victim, the sites now use a different girls pictures. Why steal pictures of a live girl to put up, if a real victim existed?

#14: Em's aunt was unable to remember if the victim's sister was older or younger, can you remember which family members are older than others? I can.

#15: Em caught on Obamas lap in a picture wearing the same dress as her family picture, when her younger sister is clearly visible in the picture and makes it easy to discern which is which. If you act you can't tell, get an optometrist appointment. I have seen this picture but when this discrepancy came out this picture is suddenly nowhere to be found.

#16 Rosen: First a gruff man dropped the kids on his lawn, then a female bus driver. Then a man again. First his grandson was 8, then he was 2. Memory lapse? Which is it? Why were only a handful of kids dropped at His house and it is farther away than the "official" evacuation point? Would any school official leave kids with an unknown man? He said a mother came by his house asking about her child, how did she know his address? He later said he saw that same child’s name (the one supposedly sitting in his living room) on the dead list the next day, except the list wasn’t published for 48 hrs. How could this be possible? And did he get a paper from the same psychics Soto and United Way hired?

#17: Why was the Swat team footage shot at St. Rose of Lima school 1 1/2 miles away ? Aerial photographs clearly show the difference between the two, especially the curb and grassy area just outside the front door.

#18: Who directed the New Haven Federal Bureau of Investigation field office to classify the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (SHES)?

#19: Why and for what reason would the FBI classify the SHES shooting when they did not classify the Columbine shooting which also was an Active Shooter Mass Casualty Incidents (AS/MCI)?

#20: Who was the Incident Commander as required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in directing the AS/MCI at SHES? Why was no FEMA statement given?

#21: Who at the Incident Command Center made the ordering of Port-A-Potties a high priority, since they were delivered within three hours of the school shooting?

#22: Who ordered those Port-A-Potties from Southbury, Connecticut? Classified.

#23: When I called the Port-A-Pottie company, after searching for over a week as to who they were and when they were ordered, I was told this information was classified and they are not allowed to share that information with me.

#24: The next morning I received a phone call from the Southbury Police Department at my home telling me not to call that company again, since I was "harassing" them.

#25: Why the high priority for toilets - but not for Life Star Trauma helicopters or paramedics?

#26: Why did they not request Life Star helicopters, knowing that children and school staff were seriously injured and clinging to life?

#27: Why did they not allow the paramedics and the EMTs inside SHES? They were blocked access, and waited 1/2 mile away at the firehouse. They are always allowed access to at least try and give aid.

#28: Who declared all 18 children and six school staff members legally dead within the first eight minutes? A coroner is by law the only legal representative to do this.

#29:. Why was the Certified Environmental Bio-Hazard Decontamination company contracted by Newtown Public Schools (NPS) to remove 45-65 gallons of blood, skull fragments, brain tissue, bodily fluids, blood-soaked carpets and any other contaminated areas inside SHES Classified. They all had to sign confidentiality agreements, or be prosecuted. This is not normal procedure.

#30: Why does an off-duty lieutenant from the Newtown Police Department (NPD) refuse to leave his off-duty work assignment at a construction site when hearing that shots have been fired at SHES?

#31: Why would a police officer by the name of Lt. Vangehle, at 921 a.m. on 12/14/2012, from the NPD, after finding a female kintergardener in the hallway, make her go into room eight (8) and leave her there? Room eight was supposedly the gruesome crime scene with dead children and school staff.

#32: Why would two Conn. State Troopers enter room ten (10) at 9:55:31 a.m. on 12/14/2012, which was supposedly the gruesome crime scene with dead children and school staff, and tell a male kindergardener who they found in the bathroom, whose name is redacted, and "tell THEM (so it must be more than one), to stay put (in a room containing dead bodies) and they will both be back when it is safe"?

#33: Who provided the urgent medical care to the two children who were not transported to the Danbury Trauma Center until an hour after the school was deemed safe, for that 15-mile drive? Classified.

#34: Who treated those two children who had been shot multiple times, 3 to 11 times, since they did not allow the paramedics and EMTs inside SHES? Classified.

#35: Why were the parents of the two children who died at the Danbury hospital not allowed for their children to donate their organs to other children waiting for the gift of life?

#36: What happened to the 500 children and 60 school staff members from SHES on 12/14/2012?


#37: Why was the police officer calling into the NPD dispatcher stating, in his words, that he had multiple weapons, a rifle and a shotgun, (as seen on video all over the news) that was found in a car outside, instead of in classroom eight (8)? Tampering with and removing evidence an alleged crime scene.

#38: Dean Garrison, editor of the blog, D.C. Clothesline, noticed an interesting anomaly while viewing videos of the alleged Sandy Hook shooting. While examining videos, he noticed that the 26 Christmas trees supposedly donated after the shooting, were at the back of the firehouse on the day of the shooting. This is available for anyone interested to see on you tube.

#39: Why were valuable homes deeded to Newtown’s three Selectmen for the sale price of $0 dollars on 25 December 2009, which may be the only real estate transactions on Christmas in the nation on that day. Not so. Go to the online tax records and put in street names in the search field and find most of the town within 2 miles of the site all had a sales price of $0 dollars, and all these sales were recorded on 12-25-09, Christmas day. Is this one of the benefits owners in the town received to remain silent?

#40: And consider the DASHCAM footage of the Sandy Hook parking lot at the times and locations where, according to the official report by Danbury State’s Attorney, Stephen Sedensky, some 469 students (not to mention the 75 staff, teachers, custodians, administrators and such) should have been evacuated. When we look at the footage, we discover they aren’t there! And they aren’t there because no evacuation was taking place. The DASHCAM footage shows that no evacuation was taking place.

#41: You might think that I have blundered by overlooking the “iconic” photograph by Shannon Hicks, which appears to show fifteen children being led away from the school by a police woman. This image made its way around the world and was published on virtually every front page of every newspaper in print. But we know now that there was a second photograph, also taken by Shannon Hicks, that gave the game away. The public was taken in by Shannon’s first photograph, even though it was a cold day on 14 December 2012: the temperature was 28*F and there was frost on the ground. But no one paid attention to signs that it had to have been taken earlier in the year (taken as early as October). And had it not been for the discovery of her second photo, she might have gotten away with it. Once the second photo emerged, however, the game was up. Parents would not have been present in time for the emergency evacuation, where the road to the school was blocked at the firehouse; and they certainly would not have been standing with their arms folded had this been a bona fide shooting. And in the second photograph they were appropriately dressed for the weather. In this case, we have the presence of evidence that should not be present at all.

#42: And what about the presence of evidence that should be absent (such as the neon sign, “Everyone must check in”), which is an intriguing element caught on camera of Sandy Hook virtually from the beginning. Does anyone seriously believe that there would be a registration procedure at a school shooting massacre? This is available for anyone interested on you tube. What we have here is the presence of evidence that should be absent. During a FOIA hearing, it was learned that DHS put up the sign but yet the presence of DHS was never mentioned in any official report of having been there during this event.

#43: This evidence also includes that certain web sites for donations to the families of the victims were up before the shooting occurred, which Dr. Eowyn has documented with screen grabs.

There is more, but this is certainly enough to cast doubt on the official story. Former intelligence expert  Dr. Steve Pieczenik, who worked in four prior administrations that is still highly connected is very adamant that this was a live shooter DRILL that was presented as a real time event.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?
> 
> Supposed to by who's ruling......yours????
> 
> Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you. I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children. Children die from drowning all the time. I don't think any American should own a pit bull either. They kill and harm people all the time. There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.
> 
> Is that the path you think our country should be on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, and we only have 3000 drownings a year.
> 
> We only have 45 deaths a year due to Dog Bites.
> 
> Your "other things are dangerous, too" act doesn't really fly here.  Pools and Dogs aren't designed to kill people.  Guns are.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Some dogs are designed (or trained) to kill.


----------



## ChrisL

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?
> 
> Supposed to by who's ruling......yours????
> 
> Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you. I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children. Children die from drowning all the time. I don't think any American should own a pit bull either. They kill and harm people all the time. There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.
> 
> Is that the path you think our country should be on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, and we only have 3000 drownings a year.
> 
> We only have 45 deaths a year due to Dog Bites.
> 
> Your "other things are dangerous, too" act doesn't really fly here.  Pools and Dogs aren't designed to kill people.  Guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not?  You mean out of the dozens of breeds, people buy pit bulls because of their kind nature?
Click to expand...


Plenty of people train their dogs to fight or to be attack dogs or guard dogs.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.
> 
> The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.
Click to expand...


This post here says it all.  Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force.  He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people.  There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Last week in a nearby community, some violent thug kidnapped his girlfriend and set her mothers house on fire. They got out of the Cleveland area for obvious reasons, and went to PA. He tried to break into somebody's home I'm assuming for a place to hide from the police. His plan would have worked fine if not for the armed homeowner who put a bullet in the SOB. The police came by and took him into custody.
> 
> Who knows what would have happened to that young girl if the homeowner was not armed. He not only saved his life, but hers as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have 33,000 gun deaths a year in this country.  Of those, only 200 a year involve citizens killing bad guys in justifiable homicides. (I don't count police shootings, because they can practically gun down a child in the street and have it called "Justified" if the child is black)
> 
> Sorry, DGU's dont happen often enough to justify the carnage.
Click to expand...


Post a link.


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> A AR 15 is no different that the
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did she know he was dangerous?  Did she think he would go on a murderous rampage?
> 
> I don't know that so please tell me how you know.
> 
> And then tell me how the gun manufacturer was liable for any deaths
Click to expand...


I thought it was clear that old Jilly doesn't know much about anything.  Lol.


----------



## Papageorgio

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one gave lanza a gun....he committed murder to get his......twit. Perhaps we should make murder illegal....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we don't sell it to a woman who thinks the best way to treat a child with a serious mental disorder is to take him to the shooting range, show him how to use a gun, and then let him play violent videogames for hours on end.
> 
> And if someone had bothered to do  any kind of background check on her, they'd have found it out, just like the news media found it out within DAYS of looking into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza was 20 years old when he went on his killing spree.  He was a LEGAL adult.
Click to expand...


No he is a kid, otherwise it wouldn't fit Joey Boi's agenda.


----------



## Dale Smith

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.
> 
> The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post here says it all.  Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force.  He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people.  There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
Click to expand...


He certainly has no common sense nor is he even aware as to what happens when a citizenry is disarmed during a time of living under a police state and that is exactly what we live in.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.
> 
> The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.
Click to expand...


That's really funny since very FEW crimes are committed with such a weapon.  Most of your crime data when it comes to homicides with guns are directly related to gangs in the inner cities, who are killing each other over "turf" or revenge killings.  How about we start to get tougher on crime and criminals instead of punishing the law abiding people over what criminals and murderers do?  How about we stop stigmatizing those who need mental health care and we make it so that people can have easier access to mental health care instead of having insurance companies deny payment for a person who obviously needs to stay in a facility for some time.  Instead we have a "revolving door" mental health system, where they see a patient, stabilize them on meds and then send them on their way.  It takes a lot of time, money and judicial reviews just to have a person committed.


----------



## Papageorgio

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.
> 
> The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really funny since very FEW crimes are committed with such a weapon.  Most of your crime data when it comes to homicides with guns are directly related to gangs in the inner cities, who are killing each other over "turf" or revenge killings.  How about we start to get tougher on crime and criminals instead of punishing the law abiding people over what criminals and murderers do?  How about we stop stigmatizing those who need mental health care and we make it so that people can have easier access to mental health care instead of having insurance companies deny payment for a person who obviously needs to stay in a facility for some time.  Instead we have a "revolving door" mental health system, where they see a patient, stabilize them on meds and then send them on their way.  It takes a lot of time, money and judicial reviews just to have a person committed.
Click to expand...


I am with you. This reminds me of the teacher that can't control the class so they punish the whole class for two kids that get into a fight. 

Get to the cause, not the symptom.


----------



## Dale Smith

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............
> 
> And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................
> 
> I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................
> 
> I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........
> 
> We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....
> 
> Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can go on all day, but at the end of the day, when the ATF SWAT team shows up at your door, you will meeklyhand over your guns and so will the rest of you nuts.
> 
> The thing is, you nuts are in the minority.  Most people do not want Adam Lanza and Joker Holmes wandering their streets with AR-15's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really funny since very FEW crimes are committed with such a weapon.  Most of your crime data when it comes to homicides with guns are directly related to gangs in the inner cities, who are killing each other over "turf" or revenge killings.  How about we start to get tougher on crime and criminals instead of punishing the law abiding people over what criminals and murderers do?  How about we stop stigmatizing those who need mental health care and we make it so that people can have easier access to mental health care instead of having insurance companies deny payment for a person who obviously needs to stay in a facility for some time.  Instead we have a "revolving door" mental health system, where they see a patient, stabilize them on meds and then send them on their way.  It takes a lot of time, money and judicial reviews just to have a person committed.
Click to expand...



Funny how this corporate "gubermint" has no problem arming Mexican drug cartels with semi-automatic weapons but soil themselves at the thought that Americans own them...


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.



I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.  

Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.  

You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.


----------



## Harry Dresden

ChrisL said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really not the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you did not get my point did ya?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is not about diabetes.  The point is lost on you.  It was sarcasm.  Now, talk about the topic or get lost.
Click to expand...

*This thread is not about diabetes.*
if it isnt why did you mention it?....i just asked if skinny people with diabetes who lose a foot will get the same consideration...which was also sarcasm...but as usual with you,lost in the ozone.....


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> That's really funny since very FEW crimes are committed with such a weapon. Most of your crime data when it comes to homicides with guns are directly related to gangs in the inner cities, who are killing each other over "turf" or revenge killings. How about we start to get tougher on crime and criminals instead of punishing the law abiding people over what criminals and murderers do? How about we stop stigmatizing those who need mental health care and we make it so that people can have easier access to mental health care instead of having insurance companies deny payment for a person who obviously needs to stay in a facility for some time. Instead we have a "revolving door" mental health system, where they see a patient, stabilize them on meds and then send them on their way. It takes a lot of time, money and judicial reviews just to have a person committed.



That's simply not true.  We have 11,101 gun murders a year, but the total number of gang-related homicides are only about 1800 (and not all committed with guns.) 

As far as getting "tougher on crime", we are currently locking up 2 million of our fellow citizens, (compared to most industrialized democracies which lock up >100K) and we are one of the few that still executes people.  

I might agree with you on our broken mental health system, but the nuts who do the shooting are the ones who haven't been reduced to eating out of garbage cans yet.  They usually have people still taking care of them.  Cho, Lanza, Holmes, Mercer- these guys were not the nasty stew bum variety of mentally ill.  But they were still able to get guns.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
Click to expand...


A lot of preschoolers????


----------



## Contumacious

Cecilie1200 said:


> So if I understand the OP correctly, the parents' argument is that their children wouldn't have been killed if _that particular gun_ had not been marketed to civilians?  He would have just said, "Oh, I can't have a 'military-style' weapon, so I guess I won't bother to shoot up the school at all", or a different gun wouldn't have been lethal, or exactly what is the thinking we're supposed to be buying into here?




No the parents strategy is to take advantage of the fact that 

(1) Scalia is dead and buried and 
(2) president Clinton will appoint a gun fascist to the SCOTUS. According to skylar and other dumbfucks once the new SCOTUS majority REVERSES _District of Columbia v. Heller and concludes that it was WRONGLY decided because Americans don't even have a right to carry slingshots , Americans will then obediently and submissively turn their weapons into the "authorities"._
(3) they also hope that the Connecticut Supreme Court will revisit the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903 - in light of the events at Sandy Hook and come up with a different result supporting the gun fascists


----------



## Dale Smith

I feel like I need to say this....I do not like posting about the things that I have learned. I don't like posting things like how Sandy Hook was a psy-op or how we don't live in a Republic anymore or that international bankers actually own this and every other country that has a central bank. I was much happier when I was ignorant. But once the scales fall from your eyes and you truly seek the real truth even if it destroys your preconceived notions of what you thought truth was? You have a duty and an obligation to share. There are people that I have learned from that did a lot of the heavy lifting for me and gave me direction and I used that foundation as a starting point. I have learned a lot of stuff because I became obsessed with finding out how things got so screwed up. I am open to anyone's opinions...I want to learn from others and I hope that I offer something that they can learn from. We are all in this together and I believe an ill wind is blowing towards us and knowledge is the only thing that will get us through it. We have the power to steer us out of the ditch...you want change? Be the change.


----------



## Contumacious

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really funny since very FEW crimes are committed with such a weapon. Most of your crime data when it comes to homicides with guns are directly related to gangs in the inner cities, who are killing each other over "turf" or revenge killings. How about we start to get tougher on crime and criminals instead of punishing the law abiding people over what criminals and murderers do? How about we stop stigmatizing those who need mental health care and we make it so that people can have easier access to mental health care instead of having insurance companies deny payment for a person who obviously needs to stay in a facility for some time. Instead we have a "revolving door" mental health system, where they see a patient, stabilize them on meds and then send them on their way. It takes a lot of time, money and judicial reviews just to have a person committed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true.  We have 11,101 gun murders a year, but the total number of gang-related homicides are only about 1800 (and not all committed with guns.)
> 
> As far as getting "tougher on crime", we are currently locking up 2 million of our fellow citizens, (compared to most industrialized democracies which lock up >100K) and we are one of the few that still executes people.
> 
> I might agree with you on our broken mental health system, but the nuts who do the shooting are the ones who haven't been reduced to eating out of garbage cans yet.  They usually have people still taking care of them.  Cho, Lanza, Holmes, Mercer- these guys were not the nasty stew bum variety of mentally ill.  But they were still able to get guns.
Click to expand...



Bullshit

Sandy Hook was a result of the  SCOTUS case styled as _*United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr.*_, 514 U.S.549 (1995) wherein the scumbags found *THE FEDERAL * ]Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C.§ 922(q).to be Constitutional under the COMMERCE CLAUSE.


That gargantuan USURPATION allowed  a criminal scumbag to murder a lot of innocent children.

SCOTUS is populated by crazy stupid criminal motherfuckers.


.Skylar wants me to say that they are "honorable" nevertheless.

.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really funny since very FEW crimes are committed with such a weapon. Most of your crime data when it comes to homicides with guns are directly related to gangs in the inner cities, who are killing each other over "turf" or revenge killings. How about we start to get tougher on crime and criminals instead of punishing the law abiding people over what criminals and murderers do? How about we stop stigmatizing those who need mental health care and we make it so that people can have easier access to mental health care instead of having insurance companies deny payment for a person who obviously needs to stay in a facility for some time. Instead we have a "revolving door" mental health system, where they see a patient, stabilize them on meds and then send them on their way. It takes a lot of time, money and judicial reviews just to have a person committed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true.  We have 11,101 gun murders a year, but the total number of gang-related homicides are only about 1800 (and not all committed with guns.)
> 
> As far as getting "tougher on crime", we are currently locking up 2 million of our fellow citizens, (compared to most industrialized democracies which lock up >100K) and we are one of the few that still executes people.
> 
> I might agree with you on our broken mental health system, but the nuts who do the shooting are the ones who haven't been reduced to eating out of garbage cans yet.  They usually have people still taking care of them.  Cho, Lanza, Holmes, Mercer- these guys were not the nasty stew bum variety of mentally ill.  But they were still able to get guns.
Click to expand...

from the CDC....i think you have your numbers mixed up Joe....*
a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.*
this is what i heard on a radio talk show with 6 California chiefs of police and 4 DA's...if you take gang gun violence out of the stats California is a pretty safe State...and they said this should be true nation wide...


----------



## ChrisL

Harry Dresden said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really not the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you did not get my point did ya?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is not about diabetes.  The point is lost on you.  It was sarcasm.  Now, talk about the topic or get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This thread is not about diabetes.*
> if it isnt why did you mention it?....i just asked if skinny people with diabetes who lose a foot will get the same consideration...which was also sarcasm...but as usual with you,lost in the ozone.....
Click to expand...


Shut up, will you?  I said it as a joke.  Get a grip and talk about the topic.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
Click to expand...


Mass shootings like Sandy Hook are the fault of the shooter and nobody else.


----------



## ChrisL

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of preschoolers????
Click to expand...


Joe has to use hyperbole because it's all he has.


----------



## Harry Dresden

ChrisL said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really not the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you did not get my point did ya?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is not about diabetes.  The point is lost on you.  It was sarcasm.  Now, talk about the topic or get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This thread is not about diabetes.*
> if it isnt why did you mention it?....i just asked if skinny people with diabetes who lose a foot will get the same consideration...which was also sarcasm...but as usual with you,lost in the ozone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up, will you?  I said it as a joke.  Get a grip and talk about the topic.
Click to expand...

why dont you get one too....because i did the same thing dumbass....like i said....lost in the ozone....


----------



## ChrisL

Harry Dresden said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really not the point.
> 
> 
> 
> you did not get my point did ya?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is not about diabetes.  The point is lost on you.  It was sarcasm.  Now, talk about the topic or get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This thread is not about diabetes.*
> if it isnt why did you mention it?....i just asked if skinny people with diabetes who lose a foot will get the same consideration...which was also sarcasm...but as usual with you,lost in the ozone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up, will you?  I said it as a joke.  Get a grip and talk about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why dont you get one too....because i did the same thing dumbass....like i said....lost in the ozone....
Click to expand...


Move on and stop being a weirdo.


----------



## Dale Smith

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
Click to expand...


Total bullshit....Sandy Hook was a hoax...a live shooter drill that was sold to us as a real time event. You could drive a company of tanks through the "official story". Same goes for Aurora, Charleston and the Virginia TV reporter.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really funny since very FEW crimes are committed with such a weapon. Most of your crime data when it comes to homicides with guns are directly related to gangs in the inner cities, who are killing each other over "turf" or revenge killings. How about we start to get tougher on crime and criminals instead of punishing the law abiding people over what criminals and murderers do? How about we stop stigmatizing those who need mental health care and we make it so that people can have easier access to mental health care instead of having insurance companies deny payment for a person who obviously needs to stay in a facility for some time. Instead we have a "revolving door" mental health system, where they see a patient, stabilize them on meds and then send them on their way. It takes a lot of time, money and judicial reviews just to have a person committed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true.  We have 11,101 gun murders a year, but the total number of gang-related homicides are only about 1800 (and not all committed with guns.)
> 
> As far as getting "tougher on crime", we are currently locking up 2 million of our fellow citizens, (compared to most industrialized democracies which lock up >100K) and we are one of the few that still executes people.
> 
> I might agree with you on our broken mental health system, but the nuts who do the shooting are the ones who haven't been reduced to eating out of garbage cans yet.  They usually have people still taking care of them.  Cho, Lanza, Holmes, Mercer- these guys were not the nasty stew bum variety of mentally ill.  But they were still able to get guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the CDC....i think you have your numbers mixed up Joe....
> *a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.*
> this is what i heard on a radio talk show with 6 California chiefs of police and 4 DA's...if you take gang gun violence out of the stats California is a pretty safe State...and they said this should be true nation wide...
Click to expand...

CDC?

Right Wing rag.

No credibility.

(Snicker)


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?
> 
> Supposed to by who's ruling......yours????
> 
> Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you. I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children. Children die from drowning all the time. I don't think any American should own a pit bull either. They kill and harm people all the time. There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.
> 
> Is that the path you think our country should be on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, and we only have 3000 drownings a year.
> 
> We only have 45 deaths a year due to Dog Bites.
> 
> Your "other things are dangerous, too" act doesn't really fly here.  Pools and Dogs aren't designed to kill people.  Guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not?  You mean out of the dozens of breeds, people buy pit bulls because of their kind nature?
Click to expand...


Actually, yes.  Pit bulls that are bred by serious, responsible breeders and not bred and trained to be aggressive are actually known for being gentle and good-natured animals.

But you can breed and train just about any type of dog to be vicious and aggressive.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Desperado said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the gun makers lose milliions defending themselves against law suits that should have been stopped by a responsible judge...there is no merit in the case...but the left wing, anti gun judge sees this as an opportunity to destroy Bushmaster.....so he let the case go forward....they also hope to have a Supreme Court in place should the case make it all the way there...then they can destroy every gun maker in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this would be a bad thing, why?
> 
> This is an industry that thrives off of death and fear.  They've flooded our streets with weapons to the point where most of us are afraid to go out at night.  Now some of their victims are going to put them out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your statistics, just because you maybe afraid to go out at night does not mean that most people feel the same way.
Click to expand...


Just because some people are delusional about the existence of crime doesn't mean they're correct.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often do kids get mowed down in schools...?  do you realize that the worst school shootings have happened in Europe?  the land of gun control...
> 
> The gun lobby knowst he truth....
> 
> 320,000,000 million guns in private hands.....
> 
> 505 accidental gun deaths vs. 35,000 accidental car deaths.
> 
> 1.500,000 million times guns are used for self defense vs.   8,124 gun murders which are majority criminal on criminal crimes...
> 
> And as more Americans own and carry guns....our violent crime rate has been going down, and our gun murder rate has been going down, and our gun suicide rate has gone down.....
> 
> So the facts, the truth and the reality are on the side of the gun rights activists....
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing needs to be done then ? There isnt one little thing that could help ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time.  The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time.  The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.
> 
> Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....
> 
> The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......
> 
> We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
Click to expand...


Insofar as the killer stole the guns, I'm going to say there's not a terribly practical way to do that, other than approaching the OTHER obvious common denominator in mass killings, crazy people.  If we denied violent crazy people access to society, that would also deny them access to guns.


----------



## Harry Dresden

ChrisL said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> you did not get my point did ya?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about diabetes.  The point is lost on you.  It was sarcasm.  Now, talk about the topic or get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This thread is not about diabetes.*
> if it isnt why did you mention it?....i just asked if skinny people with diabetes who lose a foot will get the same consideration...which was also sarcasm...but as usual with you,lost in the ozone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up, will you?  I said it as a joke.  Get a grip and talk about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why dont you get one too....because i did the same thing dumbass....like i said....lost in the ozone....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Move on and stop being a weirdo.
Click to expand...


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
Click to expand...


What common sense gun law would have stopped any shooting in the past 5 years

And a ban isn't common sense

And how many preschoolers have been gunned down since Newtown?  How many have died in a fall, drowned in a pool, been poisoned, or beaten to death by their parents?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of preschoolers????
Click to expand...

Hey he's seen the body bags


----------



## Cecilie1200

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone.  The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....
> 
> The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...
> 
> The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....
> 
> the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...
> 
> And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......
> 
> Gun free zones have to end.
> 
> 
> 
> What about preventing the killers access to guns ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
Click to expand...


You're pushing for "The only solution is for there to be no guns, anywhere in existence, so that we have a 100% rate of denying guns to potential killers!"  Problem is, that doesn't work, because it blames the tool instead of the intent of the user, who can always get a different tool.

So the solution is less about making guns unavailable - which you seem to be trying to make the defining, only-possible-choice parameter to the debate - and more about identifying and neutralizing potentially violent offenders before they can kill, and/or enabling people to defend themselves instead of being helpless targets if and when violence erupts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Tommy Tainant said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......
> 
> Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders)  so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....
> 
> And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...
> 
> So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.
> 
> Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....
> 
> So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....
> 
> So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail.   You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack.  The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers.  They seek out gun free zones to do their killing.  If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and  armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.
> 
> As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide.  The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.  if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....
> 
> What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives?  Nothing.  How was he stopped?  Your gun control laws? No.  He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.
Click to expand...


Spoken like someone who's never spent any real time in the US and has gotten all his "knowledge" about us from sensationalist media, and yet for some unknown reason, thinks that Americans are breathlessly awaiting his wisdom on how we should run our country.  "Oh, America is so violent, they just huddle behind locked doors, terrified to leave or do anything!"

Oh, just for the record, Tommy, we don't have John Wayne and Chief Sitting Bull roaming the wide open plains of the West, either.  Try not to believe everything you see in media.


----------



## JoeB131

Dale Smith said:


> I feel like I need to say this....I do not like posting about the things that I have learned. I don't like posting things like how Sandy Hook was a psy-op or how we don't live in a Republic anymore or that international bankers actually own this and every other country that has a central bank. I was much happier when I was ignorant.



YOu were probably happier when you took your medications.   I am saying this seriously, dude, get help.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skull Pilot said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of preschoolers????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey he's seen the body bags
Click to expand...


He sees a lot of things the rest of us don't.


----------



## Dale Smith

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I need to say this....I do not like posting about the things that I have learned. I don't like posting things like how Sandy Hook was a psy-op or how we don't live in a Republic anymore or that international bankers actually own this and every other country that has a central bank. I was much happier when I was ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu were probably happier when you took your medications.   I am saying this seriously, dude, get help.
Click to expand...


I know more than you...infinitely more and I will kick your ass in any type of discussion as to what we are facing. I will make you look really bad. Your lame attempts at insulting me or marginalizing me don't mean shit. Bring your "A" game because you are gonna need it.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Joe has to use hyperbole because it's all he has.



I'm sorry, what's an acceptable number of preschoolers to be gunned down by madmen?  I'm just curious what you consider an acceptable number...


----------



## JoeB131

Dale Smith said:


> I know more than you...infinitely more and I will kick your ass in any type of discussion as to what we are facing. I will make you look really bad. Your lame attempts at insulting me or marginalizing me don't mean shit. Bring your "A" game because you are gonna need it.



Guy, your fellow Right Wingers are treating you like a nut.   You seriously need to be medicated.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He sees a lot of things the rest of us don't.



Well, Ray, you have willful blindness on this issue.  Just ignore the dead kiddies...  Ignore 33,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> I'm sorry, what's an acceptable number of preschoolers to be gunned down by madmen?  I'm just curious what you consider an acceptable number...



Which of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the several states? A quote please?


----------



## Crixus

Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.


----------



## JoeB131

Harry Dresden said:


> from the CDC....i think you have your numbers mixed up Joe....
> *a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.*
> this is what i heard on a radio talk show with 6 California chiefs of police and 4 DA's...if you take gang gun violence out of the stats California is a pretty safe State...and they said this should be true nation wide...



Um, no, I don't.  

Here's what the National Gang Center (Teh government agency tasked with tracking gang activity says. 

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.


----------



## JoeB131

Centinel said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what's an acceptable number of preschoolers to be gunned down by madmen?  I'm just curious what you consider an acceptable number...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the several states? A quote please?
Click to expand...


The Commerce Clause.  Done.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what's an acceptable number of preschoolers to be gunned down by madmen?  I'm just curious what you consider an acceptable number...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the several states? A quote please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause.  Done.
Click to expand...


"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;"

And how is a law that restricts the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the several states necessary and proper for carrying into execution the power to regulate commerce among the several states?


----------



## JoeB131

Crixus said:


> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.



Actually, it's Bushmaster that is being sued here... and there's a case to be made for culpability in that Bushmaster and the other gun makers have been selling guns to people who have no business having them like Nancy Lanza.


----------



## Crixus

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> He sees a lot of things the rest of us don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Ray, you have willful blindness on this issue.  Just ignore the dead kiddies...  Ignore 33,000 gun deaths and
> 
> 
> Suicides are tossed in those stats as well as accidents and shootings involving law enforcement as well as justified shootings. Cases can and are made both ways with the same nunbers. In the end, you can't litigate stupid away. The mother was the stupid one here. Not Remington.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Centinel said:


> "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
> with the Indian Tribes;"
> 
> And how is a law that restricts the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the several states necessary and proper for carrying into execution the power to regulate commerce among the several states?



Guy, nobody is buying your shit.  No one is claiming there isn't a federal power to regulate guns... 

"Well Regulated Militia".  It's why Cleetus and Billy-bob can't own a howitzer with Anthrax shells.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> He sees a lot of things the rest of us don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Ray, you have willful blindness on this issue.  Just ignore the dead kiddies...  Ignore 33,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries.
Click to expand...


Dead kiddies happen all the time.  Summer is here and I guarantee you that there will be another couple of idiots that leave their kids in a hot car and let them die because they forgot about them.  A couple dozen or so will drown as well. 

You don't care about kiddies, you care about guns.  Kiddies is your vehicle you use to try and make your case and gain sympathy.  Because Sandy Hook happened 3/12 years ago, and many kiddies have died of other things since then.


----------



## Crixus

JoeB131 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's Bushmaster that is being sued here... and there's a case to be made for culpability in that Bushmaster and the other gun makers have been selling guns to people who have no business having them like Nancy Lanza.
Click to expand...


Nope. Remington owns the brand. Several actually. On Nancy Lanza I agree 100%, but it was HER responsibility to not be a moron. Remington makes guns that's all.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, nobody is buying your shit.  No one is claiming there isn't a federal power to regulate guns...



Actually, I am claiming that very thing.



> "Well Regulated Militia".  It's why Cleetus and Billy-bob can't own a howitzer with Anthrax shells.


So you're unable to cite any actual constitutional language that empowers congress to enact a law that restricts the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the several states.

I knew you wouldn't be able to.


----------



## JoeB131

Crixus said:


> [
> Suicides are tossed in those stats as well as accidents and shootings involving law enforcement as well as justified shootings. Cases can and are made both ways with the same nunbers. In the end, you can't litigate stupid away. The mother was the stupid one here. Not Remington.



Okay, first the "justified" shootings by civilians are less than 200 a year.  

Justified Shootings by Law Enforcement I take with a grain of salt, given you can pretty much shoot a black child playing with a toy and get it ruled "Justifiable".  

And, yes, Remington IS stupid.  

We wouldn't hesitate to hold Sudafed responsible if we knew that they considered THIS guy their prime market 






*
"What, I'm just a harmless chemistry teacher!"*

So how is it not irresponsible to hold Bushmaster responsible when they sell to a crazy person like Nancy Lanza, and someone in her world does something crazy?


----------



## JoeB131

Centinel said:


> I knew you wouldn't be able to.



I don't fight arguments I've already won...  The ATF Exists. Federal Gun laws exist.   This argument was had and lost. 

And now that your boy Scalia is taking a dirt nap, that ain't gonna change.


----------



## bripat9643

ChrisL said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?
Click to expand...


He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wouldn't be able to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't fight arguments I've already won...  The ATF Exists. Federal Gun laws exist.   This argument was had and lost.
> 
> And now that your boy Scalia is taking a dirt nap, that ain't gonna change.
Click to expand...

Won? Nope. You haven't cited the language in the constitution that gives congress authority to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the states.

You lose this one.


----------



## tinydancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?
> 
> Supposed to by who's ruling......yours????
> 
> Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you. I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children. Children die from drowning all the time. I don't think any American should own a pit bull either. They kill and harm people all the time. There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.
> 
> Is that the path you think our country should be on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, and we only have 3000 drownings a year.
> 
> We only have 45 deaths a year due to Dog Bites.
> 
> Your "other things are dangerous, too" act doesn't really fly here.  Pools and Dogs aren't designed to kill people.  Guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not?  You mean out of the dozens of breeds, people buy pit bulls because of their kind nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Pit bulls that are bred by serious, responsible breeders and not bred and trained to be aggressive are actually known for being gentle and good-natured animals.
> 
> But you can breed and train just about any type of dog to be vicious and aggressive.
Click to expand...


Helen Keller Pit. They are a terrier for crying out loud. It's not that they are a pit. It's because they are a bloody terrier. 

I hate stupid people on dogs.


----------



## MaryL

Second amendment needs a second thought. We NEED guns to protect us from people WITH guns? Eliminate the problem, that is the solution.


----------



## Dale Smith

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you...infinitely more and I will kick your ass in any type of discussion as to what we are facing. I will make you look really bad. Your lame attempts at insulting me or marginalizing me don't mean shit. Bring your "A" game because you are gonna need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, your fellow Right Wingers are treating you like a nut.   You seriously need to be medicated.
Click to expand...


 Leftwing, rightwing...body in the middle controls them both and it was planned that way. I do not belong to a political party but people on the right haven't dinged me at all for saying that the rash of mass shootings are staged events (which they are)....just leftards like you that have no game and a lack of critical thinking. I do not own even so much as a BB gun because due to my religious beliefs I don't know if I could end the life of someone that wasn't saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.

I know of what I speak and you seem to be afraid to debate me...why is that? I have gone down the rabbit hole....it veers off in many directions. I know of what I speak and the picture of what we are facing is crystal clear to me.  Pull up your big boy britches and bring more than insults to the table. You suffer from an over-inflated sense of self...that much is obvious for everyone to see.

Put aside the insults and let's see if you can refute what I contend.......I live for this stuff....what say ye???


----------



## Crixus

JoeB131 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Suicides are tossed in those stats as well as accidents and shootings involving law enforcement as well as justified shootings. Cases can and are made both ways with the same nunbers. In the end, you can't litigate stupid away. The mother was the stupid one here. Not Remington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, first the "justified" shootings by civilians are less than 200 a year.
> 
> Justified Shootings by Law Enforcement I take with a grain of salt, given you can pretty much shoot a black child playing with a toy and get it ruled "Justifiable".
> 
> And, yes, Remington IS stupid.
> 
> We wouldn't hesitate to hold Sudafed responsible if we knew that they considered THIS guy their prime market
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "What, I'm just a harmless chemistry teacher!"*
> 
> So how is it not irresponsible to hold Bushmaster responsible when they sell to a crazy person like Nancy Lanza, and someone in her world does something crazy?
Click to expand...



With the 200 a year, I'll let you redo google that,  but it's a bit more lat i heard. We just had one here matter of fact. But thats 200 bad folks shot. Yay! As for law enforcement that's rich. More black folks are shot by black children where you live in a week then are shot by cops in 5 years. That was lame man. And the Sudafed thing, last I saw you can only buy a couple box's per person. They regulate the sale because it's used to make meth great point. You fill out a yellow paper to buy a gun. It's regulated and stuff. Dont see folks bringing legal action against wall greens for selling cold Ned's that made the meth some stupid tweaker over dosed on do you ? Tha one big company who owns Bushmaster will swat the lawsuit down. And rightfully so.


----------



## Crixus

Dale Smith said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you...infinitely more and I will kick your ass in any type of discussion as to what we are facing. I will make you look really bad. Your lame attempts at insulting me or marginalizing me don't mean shit. Bring your "A" game because you are gonna need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, your fellow Right Wingers are treating you like a nut.   You seriously need to be medicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftwing, rightwing...body in the middle controls them both and it was planned that way. I do not belong to a political party but people on the right haven't dinged me at all for saying that the rash of mass shootings are staged events (which they are)....just leftards like you that have no game and a lack of critical thinking. I do not own even so much as a BB gun because due to my religious beliefs I don't know if I could end the life of someone that wasn't saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> I know of what I speak and you seem to be afraid to debate me...why is that? I have gone down the rabbit hole....it veers off in many directions. I know of what I speak and the picture of what we are facing is crystal clear to me.  Pull up your big boy britches and bring more than insults to the table. You suffer from an over-inflated sense of self...that much is obvious for everyone to see.
> 
> Put aside the insults and let's see if you can refute what I contend.......I live for this stuff....what say ye???
Click to expand...



Bull shit. All the tinfoil hat bullshit has been debunked again and again. It's also a fact that even if the cops took you right there and gave you all the transparency you demand it would never be enough. There would always be something.


----------



## Crixus

MaryL said:


> Second amendment needs a second thought. We NEED guns to protect us from people WITH guns? Eliminate the problem, that is the solution.



Or my ma, at 100 pounds and 76 years old needs her glock to protect her self from the dirt bag that would mug her.


----------



## tinydancer

Crixus said:


> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.




Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.

She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..


----------



## Crixus

tinydancer said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
Click to expand...


First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crixus said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......



It's really a pointless poll. You can sue virtual anybody for anything. The question should be framed more to the point- do the Sandy Hook Victims deserve money from gun manufacturers?


----------



## Dale Smith

Crixus said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you...infinitely more and I will kick your ass in any type of discussion as to what we are facing. I will make you look really bad. Your lame attempts at insulting me or marginalizing me don't mean shit. Bring your "A" game because you are gonna need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, your fellow Right Wingers are treating you like a nut.   You seriously need to be medicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftwing, rightwing...body in the middle controls them both and it was planned that way. I do not belong to a political party but people on the right haven't dinged me at all for saying that the rash of mass shootings are staged events (which they are)....just leftards like you that have no game and a lack of critical thinking. I do not own even so much as a BB gun because due to my religious beliefs I don't know if I could end the life of someone that wasn't saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> I know of what I speak and you seem to be afraid to debate me...why is that? I have gone down the rabbit hole....it veers off in many directions. I know of what I speak and the picture of what we are facing is crystal clear to me.  Pull up your big boy britches and bring more than insults to the table. You suffer from an over-inflated sense of self...that much is obvious for everyone to see.
> 
> Put aside the insults and let's see if you can refute what I contend.......I live for this stuff....what say ye???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. All the tinfoil hat bullshit has been debunked again and again. It's also a fact that even if the cops took you right there and gave you all the transparency you demand it would never be enough. There would always be something.
Click to expand...


Nope....100 percent bullshit and a total lie........the cover-up, redacted evidence and data dumps tells the true story.......Sandy Hoax was a fraud......hope this helps!!!


----------



## Dr Grump

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their murder rates were lower than ours before they confiscated their guns....their criminals simply don't commit murder as often...but that is changing...their drug gangs are getting more violent....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia - pre 1996 when the buy back occurred - there was a random mass shooting almost every year. Since 1996 there haven't been any. Not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Worked out real well too:
> 
> View attachment 72713
Click to expand...


You know armed robberies include knifes, baseball bats etc. Very few involved guns. note how it is declining. Also, you have no idea why it increased. More people could be reporting them, the police in different states might change the criteria that constitutes an armed robbery. I could go on.


----------



## Crixus

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
Click to expand...


No excuse.by the way, she was shot yes? So how did the crazy brat get the gun out of the safe to shoot his mom and steal the key to the safe?


----------



## Crixus

BuckToothMoron said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a pointless poll. You can sue virtual anybody for anything. The question should be framed more to the point- do the Sandy Hook Victims deserve money from gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## Harry Dresden

bripat9643 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.
Click to expand...

how long have you been a diabetic bri?...


----------



## jon_berzerk

The Horror of Amputation


----------



## jillian

ChrisL said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
Click to expand...


he was dangerous. that is why his father left.


----------



## jillian

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A AR 15 is no different that the
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did she know he was dangerous?  Did she think he would go on a murderous rampage?
> 
> I don't know that so please tell me how you know.
> 
> And then tell me how the gun manufacturer was liable for any deaths
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was clear that old Jilly doesn't know much about anything.  Lol.
Click to expand...


and yet i know more than you about everything, poor desperate one. 

now quiet, moron before you make yourself look even more ridiculous than usual.


----------



## jillian

Skull Pilot said:


> A AR 15 is no different that the
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.
> 
> This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did she know he was dangerous?  Did she think he would go on a murderous rampage?
> 
> I don't know that so please tell me how you know.
> 
> And then tell me how the gun manufacturer was liable for any deaths
Click to expand...


i don't know if they are...

see my response here...

#303

i do know they shouldn't have a blanket exemption from suit....they should be treated like any other manufacturer. THAT is what we're talking about.


----------



## jon_berzerk

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he was dangerous. that is why his father left.
Click to expand...



that is not what i have read 

got a link 

thanks


----------



## jillian

jon_berzerk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he was dangerous. that is why his father left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is not what i have read
> 
> got a link
> 
> thanks
Click to expand...


i'll try to find it. it's what i have heard.

i'm pretty sure you've heard "there was nothing anyone could do".

well, except screen people who want guns appropriately.


----------



## eagle1462010

BuckToothMoron said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a pointless poll. You can sue virtual anybody for anything. The question should be framed more to the point- do the Sandy Hook Victims deserve money from gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...

I disagree.  The ruling opens up pandora's box on more cases regarding guns..............This ruling is not just about Sandy Hook...........It is about fruitless lawsuits over and over again to assault the right to bear arms...........by suing the manufacturers of guns..........


----------



## Crixus

Listen, the biggest fear I have is that the guns I own would get stolen by dirt bags and used to commit crimes. Where I can I pill firing pins. Matter of fact, all four of my AR'S are not stored in a safe at all because they cannot fire. But


eagle1462010 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a pointless poll. You can sue virtual anybody for anything. The question should be framed more to the point- do the Sandy Hook Victims deserve money from gun manufacturers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  The ruling opens up pandora's box on more cases regarding guns..............This ruling is not just about Sandy Hook...........It is about fruitless lawsuits over and over again to assault the right to bear arms...........by suing the manufacturers of guns..........
Click to expand...


All it will do is sell more guns. Especially evil black rifles.


----------



## 2aguy

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What common sense gun law would have stopped any shooting in the past 5 years
> 
> And a ban isn't common sense
> 
> And how many preschoolers have been gunned down since Newtown?  How many have died in a fall, drowned in a pool, been poisoned, or beaten to death by their parents?
Click to expand...



Drowning is the leading cause of death for children ages 1-4....not guns....


----------



## Crixus

2aguy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What common sense gun law would have stopped any shooting in the past 5 years
> 
> And a ban isn't common sense
> 
> And how many preschoolers have been gunned down since Newtown?  How many have died in a fall, drowned in a pool, been poisoned, or beaten to death by their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is the leading cause of death for children ages 1-4....not guns....
Click to expand...


Thats not right. I wanna sue whoever it is that makes water. That stuff is dangerous.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he was dangerous. that is why his father left.
Click to expand...



Can you link to that information....I haven't seen that reported anywhere.


----------



## 2aguy

jillian said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he was dangerous. that is why his father left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is not what i have read
> 
> got a link
> 
> thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'll try to find it. it's what i have heard.
> 
> i'm pretty sure you've heard "there was nothing anyone could do".
> 
> well, except screen people who want guns appropriately.
Click to expand...



The family had trouble getting him help...and they tried.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most killing are committed by gang members. They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 16,000 homicides a year in this country, of which only 1800 a year a gang related.   Most of the rest are domestic arguments that got out of hand.
Click to expand...

Liar-80% of the unlawful  homicides in this country are gang/narcotics related

less than 15% involve lawful gun owners at the time of the shooting


----------



## turtledude

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing?  Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next.  Who would you like to live in a dry country????



he's a banoid asshole. If only conservatives drank, he'd be in favor of prohibition. it has nothing to do with public safety


----------



## bripat9643

Harry Dresden said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about skinny people who have it?.....
> 
> 
> 
> Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how long have you been a diabetic bri?...
Click to expand...

Dunno, exactly.  I was diagnosed about 5 years ago.


----------



## Papageorgio

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
Click to expand...


So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?


----------



## easyt65

"So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?"

No, even crazier, 'they' are trying to say it is the gun-maker's fault.


----------



## Crixus

Papageorgio said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
Click to expand...


Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.



stop the blood clot crying. Your'e sick and tired of the NRA beating liberal scum bag politicians that you fluff.  Common sense gun laws are ones that punish people for wrongly shooting innocents or using guns to hold up banks.  its not about your moronic fascist wet dreams of banning guns that cause you to lose controls of your bowels and bladder.  

You're a Banoid retard 
[


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> I'm sorry, what's an acceptable number of preschoolers to be gunned down by madmen?  I'm just curious what you consider an acceptable number...


Children are the last refuge of marxist assholes


----------



## turtledude

Crixus said:


> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.



really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container


----------



## easyt65

"Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable."

WTF do Liberals know about 'accountability'? It's so foreign to them they can't even spell it.

Obama handed thousands of guns to Mexican Drug cartels, to al Qaeida in Libya, and to ISIS in Syria - thousands died as a result, and no one was held accountable. Eric holder was caught dead-to-rights perpetrating 3 felony counts of perjury for covering up F&F and was protected from any accountability!

'Accountability' is something that applies to others, never to liberals.


----------



## tinydancer

I have to tell you Adams mother was trying desperately to get help. She knew she had more than a problem. None of us could help her. We should be looking at this.


----------



## Crixus

turtledude said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
Click to expand...


Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.


----------



## Crixus

tinydancer said:


> I have to tell you Adams mother was trying desperately to get help. She knew she had more than a problem. None of us could help her. We should be looking at this.



Agree100%+. Was likely hard to watch her kid go through his daily life dealing with what he had to. Messed up deal what ever angle you look at it from.


----------



## tinydancer

Crixus said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
Click to expand...


Personally I would have whacked him many years before. But then I\m different.


----------



## tinydancer

Oh boy I didn't mean it to seem so harsh but you could see the child was how can we put it nicely? Ready to tip the scales?


----------



## tinydancer

Crixus said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
Click to expand...


Problem was she got no help. She begged and begged for help. She knew he was a danger. No one would help her.


----------



## tinydancer

What do you do. You know hes lethal. What do you do Sigh. Where do you try not to cross the line. But you know something bad is going to happen.


----------



## OKTexas

tinydancer said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem was she got no help. She begged and begged for help. She knew he was a danger. No one would help her.
Click to expand...


Yet she kept guns and ammo in the home, what's wrong with that picture?


----------



## Yarddog

eagle1462010 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another ploy to try to take one of our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............
> 
> If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......
> 
> Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................
Click to expand...

agreed, they will never tell the truth about their motives


----------



## Skull Pilot

MaryL said:


> Second amendment needs a second thought. We NEED guns to protect us from people WITH guns? Eliminate the problem, that is the solution.



Now tell me how you are going to get rid of every single gun


----------



## Skull Pilot

jillian said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A AR 15 is no different that the
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think "most" people would agree.  What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk.  She did nothing wrong.  Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did she know he was dangerous?  Did she think he would go on a murderous rampage?
> 
> I don't know that so please tell me how you know.
> 
> And then tell me how the gun manufacturer was liable for any deaths
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't know if they are...
> 
> see my response here...
> 
> #303
> 
> i do know they shouldn't have a blanket exemption from suit....they should be treated like any other manufacturer. THAT is what we're talking about.
Click to expand...


Any manufacturer can be sued if their product is defective.  That isn't the case here

People are looking to sue a third party for the actions of another. 
So if one can sue a gun manufacturer because someone used a gun to kill someone then why not sue Louisville slugger if someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat ?( blunt objects are used in more murders than rifles btw)

How about suing the lumber yard that manufactured the wood for a set of stairs or the contractor who installed them being sued if a person is pushed down them and dies as a result?


----------



## Claudette

Tipsycatlover said:


> They will lose.



I agree. No way can a gun manufacturer be held accountable on how someone uses a gun.

That's like suing the auto makers when someone uses a car to kill someone.

Bullshit 101


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skull Pilot said:


> Any manufacturer can be sued if their product is defective. That isn't the case here




Correct.  The product wasn't defective--the user was defective.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
> 
> 
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how long have you been a diabetic bri?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dunno, exactly.  I was diagnosed about 5 years ago.
Click to expand...


I've had it since the age of 25.  It sucks.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

turtledude said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing?  Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next.  Who would you like to live in a dry country????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he's a banoid asshole. If only conservatives drank, he'd be in favor of prohibition. it has nothing to do with public safety
Click to expand...


Or children.


----------



## ChrisL

Crixus said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
Click to expand...


He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.  

Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.


----------



## ChrisL

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how long have you been a diabetic bri?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dunno, exactly.  I was diagnosed about 5 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've had it since the age of 25.  It sucks.
Click to expand...


Sorry to hear that.  I didn't mean to make light of the disease itself.  I know that it's a very terrible disease.


----------



## ChrisL

Crixus said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
Click to expand...


Her guns were locked in a safe.


----------



## ChrisL

So, a criminal steals some guns to commit a crime, murder, robbery or whatever.  

So tell me, what gun control measures would stop that from happening?  Quote just ONE gun control law that would prevent that from happening?


----------



## JoeB131

Centinel said:


> Won? Nope. You haven't cited the language in the constitution that gives congress authority to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the states.
> 
> You lose this one.



Tell you what, Buddy.  Why don't you call up the ATF, tell them you have a shitload of sawed off shotguns and converted AR-15s but it's all okay, because the Federal Government doesn't have the authority... 


Please, please, please do that.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.



So you are for the only thing standing between us and a room full of dead pre-schoolers is the judgement of a woman like Nancy Lanza, a prepper nut who was stocking weapons and food like the Zombie Apocalypse was coming?  

I think I want better assurances than that.  

Make the gun companies pay a shitload of money, and we will get those assurances.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are for the only thing standing between us and a room full of dead pre-schoolers is the judgement of a woman like Nancy Lanza, a prepper nut who was stocking weapons and food like the Zombie Apocalypse was coming?
> 
> I think I want better assurances than that.
> 
> Make the gun companies pay a shitload of money, and we will get those assurances.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link that she was "crazy" as you keep claiming?  Now I asked before, and you still haven't produced any evidence that she was crazy.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are for the only thing standing between us and a room full of dead pre-schoolers is the judgement of a woman like Nancy Lanza, a prepper nut who was stocking weapons and food like the Zombie Apocalypse was coming?
> 
> I think I want better assurances than that.
> 
> Make the gun companies pay a shitload of money, and we will get those assurances.
Click to expand...


No, criminals will still be able to get guns, silly boy.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> Tell you what, Buddy.  Why don't you call up the ATF, tell them you have a shitload of sawed off shotguns and converted AR-15s but it's all okay, because the Federal Government doesn't have the authority...
> 
> Please, please, please do that.


You STILL haven't cited the language in the constitution that gives congress authority to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the states.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> Make the gun companies pay a shitload of money, [...]



For what?


----------



## ChrisL

Centinel said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make the gun companies pay a shitload of money, [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what?
Click to expand...


Wanna hear something funny?  Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them.  Lol.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Do you have a link that she was "crazy" as you keep claiming? Now I asked before, and you still haven't produced any evidence that she was crazy.



Prepper = Crazy.   



ChrisL said:


> No, criminals will still be able to get guns, silly boy.



Again, not the "criminals" I'm worried about, as most gun deaths are regular folks who just had a really bad day.  



Centinel said:


> You STILL haven't cited the language in the constitution that gives congress authority to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the states.



I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.   



Centinel said:


> For what?



Profiting off of death and misery...


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that she was "crazy" as you keep claiming? Now I asked before, and you still haven't produced any evidence that she was crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prepper = Crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, criminals will still be able to get guns, silly boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not the "criminals" I'm worried about, as most gun deaths are regular folks who just had a really bad day.
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL haven't cited the language in the constitution that gives congress authority to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Profiting off of death and misery...
Click to expand...


Nope, prepper doesn't equal crazy.  Lol.  

Most shootings are due to criminals and gang violence.


----------



## Valerie

JoeB131 said:


> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> *Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.  *
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.





yep, let's _"make America great again"_ by coming together on common sense gun regulations.



_*AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned* under a 1994 law that expired in 2004 despite broad public support and a drop in gun fatalities_






*Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws in the wake of the deadly Oregon school shooting.*

She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.

Mrs Clinton also vowed to use executive powers as president to expand background checks at gun shows and ban domestic abusers from purchasing guns.

The issue of gun control is a hugely divisive issue in the US.

Her announcement comes after a deadly shooting at Umqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, last week left eight students and a teacher dead.

She told a rally in New Hampshire: "I will try every way I can to get those guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

"We need to prevent these kinds of terrible crimes that are happening."


Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings - BBC News


----------



## ChrisL

*Who Has Guns and How Are They Acquired? | National Institute of Justice*

*Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide*
Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

NIJ's earliest firearms studies uncovered who owns guns, legally and illegally, and how illegal gun trafficking is tied to juvenile gun violence and other crimes such as drug dealing and gang crime. Highlights of these studies:


Many juveniles and young adults can easily obtain guns illegally; most claim to carry them for self-defense.
A study of persons arrested for a wide range of crimes showed that a higher percentage of arrestees than regular citizens own firearms. Arrestees are also more likely to be injured or killed by gun violence. Within a community, this amounts to an identifiable group of “career” offenders.
Surveys of offenders have found that they prefer newer, high-quality guns and may steal or borrow them; most, however, acquire guns “off the street” through the illicit gun market.


----------



## Valerie

*Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires*
_September 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM EDT_

JIM LEHRER: Now, the assault weapons ban. The ten-year-old law expires at midnight tonight. It outlaws 19 types of military- style semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as ammunition clips holding more than ten rounds.

Republican congressional leaders declined to bring reauthorizing legislation to the floor for debate or vote, saying there were not enough votes to pass it.

We get reaction to the end of the ban now from two very different perspectives. Gil Kerlikowske is chief of the Seattle Police Department. Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association. Chief Kerlikowske, first, what is your reading of what the impact of the failure to extend this ban is going to be?

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, I think it sends a terrible signal to America’s law enforcement officers. This was a ban that ten years ago was put into place because of chiefs and sheriffs and the legitimate organizations that represent line officers and deputies.

I think it also sends a terrible message to America’s communities. The last thing we need are more military-style assault weapons on the streets of this country.

JIM LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind, Chief, that the lifting of the ban will in fact cause that to happen? There will be more of these weapons going on the streets?

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: There’s no question that there will be more weapons on the streets. Right now, the companies are taking orders in advance of the sunset provision.

We know that people will buy them and that unfortunately they will get stolen from their homes and out of their cars. And they are going to proliferate on our streets.

JIM LEHRER: And the end result of that proliferation would be what in your opinion?

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: A couple of things: One is that our law enforcement officers, my officers in Seattle, the others around this country, face enough danger right now.

They do not need to face the additional danger of additional weapons. We also know that when the family gun becomes an assault weapon, then that’s the gun that’s going to be stolen and will get out on our streets.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Wanna hear something funny? Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them. Lol.



when did I claim to own guns?  

Now, I fired a shitload of guns.  It's kind of a job requirement when you are in the Army.  But I've never owned one and have no desire to. 

I just see no good reason why a civilian should have a gun.  Self Defense never happens with them, at least not enough to balance out the deaths they cause. They make us less free because the government arms itself more than we do. (40% of gun sales are to government agencies.) 

33,000 deaths. 
70,000 injuries
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses.

EVERY YEAR.


----------



## ChrisL

The bottom line is that most gun control laws are aimed at the "law abiding" population of America, and would be highly unlikely to control any of the true violence and mayhem caused by gangs and criminals, as this segment of the population largely IGNORES laws.  Hence the reason why we call them "criminals."  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna hear something funny? Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to own guns?
> 
> Now, I fired a shitload of guns.  It's kind of a job requirement when you are in the Army.  But I've never owned one and have no desire to.
> 
> I just see no good reason why a civilian should have a gun.  Self Defense never happens with them, at least not enough to balance out the deaths they cause. They make us less free because the government arms itself more than we do. (40% of gun sales are to government agencies.)
> 
> 33,000 deaths.
> 70,000 injuries
> $270,000,000,000 in economic losses.
> 
> EVERY YEAR.
Click to expand...


You told me and others before that you owned guns.  Are you taking that back now?  Hmm.  Interesting.  Very interesting.


----------



## Iceweasel

Valerie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> *Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.  *
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep, let's _"make America great again"_ by coming together on common sense gun regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> _*AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned* under a 1994 law that expired in 2004 despite broad public support and a drop in gun fatalities_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws in the wake of the deadly Oregon school shooting.*
> 
> She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.
> 
> Mrs Clinton also vowed to use executive powers as president to expand background checks at gun shows and ban domestic abusers from purchasing guns.
> 
> The issue of gun control is a hugely divisive issue in the US.
> 
> Her announcement comes after a deadly shooting at Umqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, last week left eight students and a teacher dead.
> 
> She told a rally in New Hampshire: "I will try every way I can to get those guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> "We need to prevent these kinds of terrible crimes that are happening."
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings - BBC News
Click to expand...

The 2nd A was written to include overthrowing a tyrannical government. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is amazing. This has been known for 250 years already, what's it going to take for you? 

The so called common sense gun legislation was , like most liberals policies and didn't do jack shit for crime or murder but don't let the facts bump your ass on the way out the door.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna hear something funny? Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to own guns?
> 
> Now, I fired a shitload of guns.  It's kind of a job requirement when you are in the Army.  But I've never owned one and have no desire to.
> 
> I just see no good reason why a civilian should have a gun.  Self Defense never happens with them, at least not enough to balance out the deaths they cause. They make us less free because the government arms itself more than we do. (40% of gun sales are to government agencies.)
> 
> 33,000 deaths.
> 70,000 injuries
> $270,000,000,000 in economic losses.
> 
> EVERY YEAR.
Click to expand...


How many of those 33,000 deaths are due to suicide, dishonest POS?


----------



## Iceweasel

Valerie said:


> *Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires*
> _September 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM EDT_
> 
> JIM LEHRER: Now, the assault weapons ban. The ten-year-old law expires at midnight tonight. It outlaws 19 types of military- style semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as ammunition clips holding more than ten rounds.
> 
> Republican congressional leaders declined to bring reauthorizing legislation to the floor for debate or vote, saying there were not enough votes to pass it.
> 
> We get reaction to the end of the ban now from two very different perspectives. Gil Kerlikowske is chief of the Seattle Police Department. Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association. Chief Kerlikowske, first, what is your reading of what the impact of the failure to extend this ban is going to be?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, I think it sends a terrible signal to America’s law enforcement officers. This was a ban that ten years ago was put into place because of chiefs and sheriffs and the legitimate organizations that represent line officers and deputies.
> 
> I think it also sends a terrible message to America’s communities. The last thing we need are more military-style assault weapons on the streets of this country.
> 
> JIM LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind, Chief, that the lifting of the ban will in fact cause that to happen? There will be more of these weapons going on the streets?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: There’s no question that there will be more weapons on the streets. Right now, the companies are taking orders in advance of the sunset provision.
> 
> We know that people will buy them and that unfortunately they will get stolen from their homes and out of their cars. And they are going to proliferate on our streets.
> 
> JIM LEHRER: And the end result of that proliferation would be what in your opinion?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: A couple of things: One is that our law enforcement officers, my officers in Seattle, the others around this country, face enough danger right now.
> 
> They do not need to face the additional danger of additional weapons. We also know that when the family gun becomes an assault weapon, then that’s the gun that’s going to be stolen and will get out on our streets.
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires


That's cute. You stupidly posted the opinion of a liberal appointed cheif in a very liberal city and failed to post the counter argument. That's a bit too obvious. You need to step up your game.


----------



## Valerie

feel free to follow the link i provided, to see the rest of the piece...  you're welcome.


----------



## ChrisL

America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem

Chicago's murder numbers have hit that magic 500. Baltimore's murder toll has passed 200. In Philly, it's up to 324, the highest since 2007. In Detroit, it's approaching 400, another record. In New Orleans, it's almost at 200.New York City is down to 414 from 508. In Los Angeles, it's over 500. In St. Louis it's 113 and 130 in Oakland.  It’s 121 in Memphis and 76 in Birmingham.

Washington, D.C., home of the boys and girls who can solve it all, is nearing its own big 100.

Those 12 cities alone account for nearly 3,200 dead and nearly a quarter of all murders in the United States. And we haven't even visited sunny Atlanta or chilly Cleveland.

These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, the Midwestern 4.5 or the Illinois’ 5.6 rates, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.

But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be New Orleans which at an incredible 72.8 murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. If New Orleans were a country, it would have the 2nd highest murder rate in the world, beating out El Salvador.

Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.

St. Louis has a murder rate just a little lower than Belize. Baltimore has a worse murder rate than South Africa and Detroit has a worse murder rate than Colombia. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among the Romney voters rushing to stock up on assault rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle which is agonizing over its 26 murders. That's about the same number of murders as East St. Louis which has only 27,000 people to Seattle's 620,000.

So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell ahead of Zimbabwe and Rwanda?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.


----------



## Valerie

Iceweasel said:


> You need to step up your game.




is that what you're up to?  playing games?


----------



## Iceweasel

Valerie said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to step up your game.
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you're up to?  playing games?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's called being honest. Try it sometime.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> The bottom line is that most gun control laws are aimed at the "law abiding" population of America, and would be highly unlikely to control any of the true violence and mayhem caused by gangs and criminals, as this segment of the population largely IGNORES laws.  Hence the reason why we call them "criminals."  Lol.



The vast majority of gun deaths are 

Suicides (19,500)
Domestic Arguments (about 50% of the 11,000 homicides every year) 
Accidents ( about 800 a year)  

So if we drop the death rate from 32,000 a year to maybe 5000 a year, I'm kind of good with that. The police will have a lot more free time on their hands to deal with the "criminals" (usually just poor people making bad choices, but never mind) because they won't be writing up a shitloads of reports on suicides and domestic murders.  

Again, I don't worry about the "Criminal".  As long as we have the racism and economic inequality you are ooooh, sooo good with, we are going to have crime.  

Since we can't deal with the underlying cause, we can at least deal with the symptom - too many guns in the wrong hands.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.



Yet you still can't point to the constitutional authorization for them to do so. 



> Profiting off of death and misery...



So the police and ATF should not purchase any guns from gun manufacturers?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> How many of those 33,000 deaths are due to suicide, dishonest POS?



Are people who commit suicide less dead?  Are their families less devastated?  I'm just wondering at what point you say to a grieving relative, "Well, no big deal, it was only a suicide".    I'm not imagining that being said by anyone who isn't a horrible person.  

Now, I guess you can make the argument that the suicidal might fight other ways to end their lives if there weren't guns available.  Maybe.  But most of those methods are easier to stop and you have a decent chance of saving the person.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that most gun control laws are aimed at the "law abiding" population of America, and would be highly unlikely to control any of the true violence and mayhem caused by gangs and criminals, as this segment of the population largely IGNORES laws.  Hence the reason why we call them "criminals."  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun deaths are
> 
> Suicides (19,500)
> Domestic Arguments (about 50% of the 11,000 homicides every year)
> Accidents ( about 800 a year)
> 
> So if we drop the death rate from 32,000 a year to maybe 5000 a year, I'm kind of good with that. The police will have a lot more free time on their hands to deal with the "criminals" (usually just poor people making bad choices, but never mind) because they won't be writing up a shitloads of reports on suicides and domestic murders.
> 
> Again, I don't worry about the "Criminal".  As long as we have the racism and economic inequality you are ooooh, sooo good with, we are going to have crime.
> 
> Since we can't deal with the underlying cause, we can at least deal with the symptom - too many guns in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...


Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally.  Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.


----------



## JoeB131

Centinel said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to the constitutional authorization for them to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profiting off of death and misery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the police and ATF should not purchase any guns from gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...


the only reason why the Police and ATF have to be armed like soldiers is that the gun industry has flooded the market with guns.  
I'm sorry you are too stupid to realize this.   

When the gun industry has to start paying the loved ones of the people they kill, they will change their behavior.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those 33,000 deaths are due to suicide, dishonest POS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are people who commit suicide less dead?  Are their families less devastated?  I'm just wondering at what point you say to a grieving relative, "Well, no big deal, it was only a suicide".    I'm not imagining that being said by anyone who isn't a horrible person.
> 
> Now, I guess you can make the argument that the suicidal might fight other ways to end their lives if there weren't guns available.  Maybe.  But most of those methods are easier to stop and you have a decent chance of saving the person.
Click to expand...


Of course not.  There are plenty of ways to commit suicide.  

Some countries with the highest suicide rates in the world . . . 

The Highest Suicide Rates Worldwide
*Rank* *Country* *Suicides per 100,000 People*
1 Guyana 44.2
2 South Korea 28.9
3 Sri Lanka 28.8
4 Lithuania 28.2


----------



## Valerie

*August 9, 2004*-*States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a  list  of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support “renewing and strengthening” the federal Assault Weapons Ban.*  Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland  Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York  Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.

*June 2004*-A  study  commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, “Attacks with semiautomatics-including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines-result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” The study also reports, “Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful.”

*April 27, 2004*-Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, “There is a reason that these [assault] weapons  are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement.”

*May 2003*-The Violence Policy Center releases the “Officer Down” report, which finds that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.

*1994*-In an analysis of assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) writes, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guys in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”   The ATF describes assault weapons as “large capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use … Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces.”

http://csgv.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mass-produced-mayhem-231x300.jpg


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how long have you been a diabetic bri?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dunno, exactly.  I was diagnosed about 5 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've had it since the age of 25.  It sucks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sure does.  It sure limits your diet.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally. Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.



Again, most gun deaths are people who live in the home where the gun is kept....  so no, we are targeting the right people. 

There'd be 26 kids and teachers alive today if Nancy Lanza couldn't buy guns.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to the constitutional authorization for them to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profiting off of death and misery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the police and ATF should not purchase any guns from gun manufacturers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only reason why the Police and ATF have to be armed like soldiers is that the gun industry has flooded the market with guns.
> I'm sorry you are too stupid to realize this.
> 
> When the gun industry has to start paying the loved ones of the people they kill, they will change their behavior.
Click to expand...


So you're advocating that the police and ATF get rid of their guns too, right?


----------



## Valerie

_We're talking about weapons that are made for war," said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. "An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47... these high-capacity [guns]... you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel."_

_Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons_


----------



## Iceweasel

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons
*Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.*
*Fact:* In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

*Fact:* In the first 17 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%. 4

*Fact:* Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

*Fact:* Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

*Fact:* Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:


*Los Angeles:* In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
*San Francisco:* In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
*San Diego:* Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
“I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7
For the rest of the nation:


Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9
*Fact:* Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10

*Fact:* In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11

*Fact:* Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12

*Fact:* Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13


----------



## Wry Catcher

ChrisL said:


> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.



Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled.  Do you feel this is ridiculous too?  Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings.  A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.


----------



## Iceweasel

Valerie said:


> _We're talking about weapons that are made for war," said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. "An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47... these high-capacity [guns]... you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel."_
> 
> _Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons_


Police chiefs are appointed and, especially in big cities, are appointed by leftists. But no, the .223 or .556 doesn't go through steel or brick. In fact it has less penetration in drywall than the 9mm. That chief probably never even held a gun.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wry Catcher said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled.  Do you feel this is ridiculous too?  Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings.  A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
Click to expand...

I can flip open my knife as fast as a switchblade. Cosmetic laws only serve to placate libtards for more votes. Like candy to a baby.


----------



## Crixus

ChrisL said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her guns were locked in a safe.
Click to expand...


Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.


----------



## Crixus

Iceweasel said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _We're talking about weapons that are made for war," said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. "An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47... these high-capacity [guns]... you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel."_
> 
> _Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons_
> 
> 
> 
> Police chiefs are appointed and, especially in big cities, are appointed by leftists. But no, the .223 or .556 doesn't go through steel or brick. In fact it has less penetration in drywall than the 9mm. That chief probably never even held a gun.
Click to expand...


You sure ?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Iceweasel said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled.  Do you feel this is ridiculous too?  Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings.  A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can flip open my knife as fast as a switchblade. Cosmetic laws only serve to placate libtards for more votes. Like candy to a baby.
Click to expand...


Gee, goody good for you.  At 100 paces I could hide behind a wall and kill you with the twitch of my finger.  The only point you have ever offered is the one on top of your head.


----------



## Crixus

ChrisL said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
Click to expand...


We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## Iceweasel

Crixus said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _We're talking about weapons that are made for war," said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. "An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47... these high-capacity [guns]... you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel."_
> 
> _Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons_
> 
> 
> 
> Police chiefs are appointed and, especially in big cities, are appointed by leftists. But no, the .223 or .556 doesn't go through steel or brick. In fact it has less penetration in drywall than the 9mm. That chief probably never even held a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure ?
Click to expand...

Yep.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wry Catcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled.  Do you feel this is ridiculous too?  Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings.  A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can flip open my knife as fast as a switchblade. Cosmetic laws only serve to placate libtards for more votes. Like candy to a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, goody good for you.  At 100 paces I could hide behind a wall and kill you with the twitch of my finger.  The only point you have ever offered is the one on top of your head.
Click to expand...

You have no counter to what I said because you can't counter it. What does you cowering behind a wall with a gun have to do with anything?


----------



## Iceweasel

Crixus said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...

Like suing the auto dealer? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Crixus said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...


So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?

Watch this before you answer:


Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?


----------



## Crixus

Iceweasel said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _We're talking about weapons that are made for war," said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. "An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47... these high-capacity [guns]... you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel."_
> 
> _Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons_
> 
> 
> 
> Police chiefs are appointed and, especially in big cities, are appointed by leftists. But no, the .223 or .556 doesn't go through steel or brick. In fact it has less penetration in drywall than the 9mm. That chief probably never even held a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.
Click to expand...


You are misinformed. That or I have superduper ultra magic bullets.


----------



## Crixus

T


Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
Click to expand...

 
Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?


----------



## jon_berzerk

jillian said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he was dangerous. that is why his father left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is not what i have read
> 
> got a link
> 
> thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'll try to find it. it's what i have heard.
> 
> i'm pretty sure you've heard "there was nothing anyone could do".
> 
> well, except screen people who want guns appropriately.
Click to expand...


*i'm pretty sure you've heard "there was nothing anyone could do"*.

why do you make up shit like that 

i asked a serious question 

and this is the kind of bullshit i get back 

you posted the dad left because the kid was dangerous 

do you have a link or not


----------



## Crixus

Iceweasel said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like suing the auto dealer? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...


I agree. Or in wrycatchers vedio, say Vato Loco nailed the kid on the skate board, would his family sue Chevy? Completely stupid I agree. Going by the train of thought of those who saw bushmaster, the thug the cops shot could sue the cops as well as the company who made the gun they used to drop his ass. It's madness.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Crixus said:


> T
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
Click to expand...


The point is obvious.  Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible.  These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:


Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
Was someone harmed?


----------



## jon_berzerk

2aguy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had autism.  Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird."  That doesn't make them dangerous or violent.  Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he was dangerous. that is why his father left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is not what i have read
> 
> got a link
> 
> thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'll try to find it. it's what i have heard.
> 
> i'm pretty sure you've heard "there was nothing anyone could do".
> 
> well, except screen people who want guns appropriately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The family had trouble getting him help...and they tried.
Click to expand...



she said that is why the old man left 

because the kid was dangerous 

i have not seen any reason such  as that 

as to why  the divorce but maybe


----------



## Papageorgio

Crixus said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
Click to expand...


So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible? 

You are dumber than dirt.


----------



## Crixus

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is obvious.  Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible.  These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:
> 
> 
> Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
> Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
> Was someone harmed?
Click to expand...



Using that train of thought a guy could point at about anything and say it is dangerous as sue the folks who make and sell it.

Duity, does the maker of fiberglass 6' step ladders and framing hammers have a Duity to the general public?

Breach- did the manufacturer of these items provide them to the public ?

Was some one harmed ?

Going by that, if I'm on my ladder and due to Crappy manufacturing it breaks and I fall I feel that I should be compensated. But, should I misuse the ladder and get hurt,  should I be compensated even though I misused it ? Nope. That's just crazy.


----------



## Papageorgio

Valerie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> *Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.  *
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep, let's _"make America great again"_ by coming together on common sense gun regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> _*AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned* under a 1994 law that expired in 2004 despite broad public support and a drop in gun fatalities_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws in the wake of the deadly Oregon school shooting.*
> 
> She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.
> 
> Mrs Clinton also vowed to use executive powers as president to expand background checks at gun shows and ban domestic abusers from purchasing guns.
> 
> The issue of gun control is a hugely divisive issue in the US.
> 
> Her announcement comes after a deadly shooting at Umqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, last week left eight students and a teacher dead.
> 
> She told a rally in New Hampshire: "I will try every way I can to get those guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> "We need to prevent these kinds of terrible crimes that are happening."
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings - BBC News
Click to expand...


Yet, when she gets into office, she will not follow through. Most politicians are just words.


----------



## Harry Dresden

bripat9643 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skinny people rarely get type II diabetes.
> 
> 
> 
> and type 2 never lose a limb to it,but type 1's do....so she was talking type 1 and they are not all fat....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord!  The point totally flew over your head, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also wrong about Type IIs never losing a limb because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how long have you been a diabetic bri?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dunno, exactly.  I was diagnosed about 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

well you are right....a friend of mine came over last night who is a type 1 and he told me whats what,he has lost part of his foot...but he said most of the type 2's who do lose a foot are MOSTLY the ones who do not take care of themselves or those who just seem to get worse no matter what they do,he said thats what gets out of what his Endocrinologist told him when he was about to lose his....otherwise they usually stay intact.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally. Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most gun deaths are people who live in the home where the gun is kept....  so no, we are targeting the right people.
> 
> There'd be 26 kids and teachers alive today if Nancy Lanza couldn't buy guns.
Click to expand...

so adam would have got them from someone else....


----------



## Lady_Lbrty

Iceweasel said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled.  Do you feel this is ridiculous too?  Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings.  A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can flip open my knife as fast as a switchblade. Cosmetic laws only serve to placate libtards for more votes. Like candy to a baby.
Click to expand...

So by your logic, aerosols, gasoline, kerosene, and all flammable liquids should be banned. Along with lighters. I can turn a can of hair spray into a flamethrower in a split second and burn you alive. We also need to be rid of ink pens. I can take a well made ink pen and RAM it into your skull just as fast as shooting you, and it will kill you just as dead. Machetes must be banned as well, I could move through a room dealing fatal blows VERY QUICKLY, especially a room full of children who don't understand what is really happening. I could also use my automobile as a very effective tool to pull off a mass murder, very easily. Your argument is flawed, your Liberal logic tells you that if we rid the world of those evil guns, murders will be far too difficult for the average person to pull off. What you're missing is that the "average" person isn't who is doing these horrendous things. It's people who are not right, people who do this sort of thing will accomplish their goals regardless. The means just may be far more horrific than anything  a gun could accomplish. I mean 9/11 taught us that. But being the Liberal that you are, you will never understand and are much less likely to EVER admit that you're wrong, being the social justice warriors that you are. You're on a crusade and ONLY you're  opinion is the "RIGHT" opinion. Everyone else is just to stupid to see it. But they will, once you impose your will upon society everyone will see what a gun free Kumbaya utopia you've created. The fact is, murders AND mass murders will still take place even if you banned all guns. Personally I don't think I will be giving up my weapons any time soon. My personal safety depends upon me, I don't have a security detail or a cop living with me. I also just do not trust my own Government enough to allow them to be armed with assault weapons and tanks, while I have a bb gun. The founders were brilliant men. Believe it or not, society was far more violent back then and  people killed each other quite often. Hell, one of our US presidents killed a man. The point is they STILL thought providing the citizens with a means to protect themselves against any who would do them harm was important. And that included ones own Government. They understood that even the system they put in place could be manipulated and the balance of power taken from the people. And look at what's happened, just that. You DO NOT have the right to force me to live in a society that YOU deem appropriate, I have a right to protect myself. I think we should divide the country in half and the liberals can have their gun free utopia. Let us know how that works out for ya.

Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk


----------



## Crixus

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally. Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most gun deaths are people who live in the home where the gun is kept....  so no, we are targeting the right people.
> 
> There'd be 26 kids and teachers alive today if Nancy Lanza couldn't buy guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so adam would have got them from someone else....
Click to expand...


Or plowed into all the kids with his or his mom's car ? Maybe have gone on a slashing spree ? Maybe done something similar to what this fellow in Germany did back in the 60's?


Cologne school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All that was stuff from the garden shed. Guns or no guns if it's in their head to do it they are going to do it.


----------



## Lady_Lbrty

Crixus said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is obvious.  Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible.  These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:
> 
> 
> Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
> Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
> Was someone harmed?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Using that train of thought a guy could point at about anything and say it is dangerous as sue the folks who make and sell it.
> 
> Duity, does the maker of fiberglass 6' step ladders and framing hammers have a Duity to the general public?
> 
> Breach- did the manufacturer of these items provide them to the public ?
> 
> Was some one harmed ?
> 
> Going by that, if I'm on my ladder and due to Crappy manufacturing it breaks and I fall I feel that I should be compensated. But, should I misuse the ladder and get hurt,  should I be compensated even though I misused it ? Nope. That's just crazy.
Click to expand...

These liberals will never admit that they're wrong. They're on a crusade and ONLY THEY have the CORRECT opinions. Haven't you learned that? No amount of  logic will ever work on them, they have "facts" and "statistics". We all know those are NOT flawed in any way. They support exactly the position you want them to support!

Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk


----------



## Iceweasel

Lady_Lbrty said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled.  Do you feel this is ridiculous too?  Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings.  A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can flip open my knife as fast as a switchblade. Cosmetic laws only serve to placate libtards for more votes. Like candy to a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by your logic, aerosols, gasoline, kerosene, and all flammable liquids should be banned. Along with lighters. I can turn a can of hair spray into a flamethrower in a split second and burn you alive. We also need to be rid of ink pens. I can take a well made ink pen and RAM it into your skull just as fast as shooting you, and it will kill you just as dead. Machetes must be banned as well, I could move through a room dealing fatal blows VERY QUICKLY, especially a room full of children who don't understand what is really happening. I could also use my automobile as a very effective tool to pull off a mass murder, very easily. Your argument is flawed, your Liberal logic tells you that if we rid the world of those evil guns, murders will be far too difficult for the average person to pull off. What you're missing is that the "average" person isn't who is doing these horrendous things. It's people who are not right, people who do this sort of thing will accomplish their goals regardless. The means just may be far more horrific than anything  a gun could accomplish. I mean 9/11 taught us that. But being the Liberal that you are, you will never understand and are much less likely to EVER admit that you're wrong, being the social justice warriors that you are. You're on a crusade and ONLY you're  opinion is the "RIGHT" opinion. Everyone else is just to stupid to see it. But they will, once you impose your will upon society everyone will see what a gun free Kumbaya utopia you've created. The fact is, murders AND mass murders will still take place even if you banned all guns. Personally I don't think I will be giving up my weapons any time soon. My personal safety depends upon me, I don't have a security detail or a cop living with me. I also just do not trust my own Government enough to allow them to be armed with assault weapons and tanks, while I have a bb gun. The founders were brilliant men. Believe it or not, society was far more violent back then and  people killed each other quite often. Hell, one of our US presidents killed a man. The point is they STILL thought providing the citizens with a means to protect themselves against any who would do them harm was important. And that included ones own Government. They understood that even the system they put in place could be manipulated and the balance of power taken from the people. And look at what's happened, just that. You DO NOT have the right to force me to live in a society that YOU deem appropriate, I have a right to protect myself. I think we should divide the country in half and the liberals can have their gun free utopia. Let us know how that works out for ya.
Click to expand...

You responded to the wrong poster.


----------



## Lady_Lbrty

I did, I'm sorry. I'm new. I was trying to get to that stupid liberal, and I am to stupid to know how. Ha! So much for my argument.

Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk


----------



## Iceweasel

Lady_Lbrty said:


> I did, I'm sorry. I'm new. I was trying to get to that stupid liberal, and I am to stupid to know how. Ha! So much for my argument.


It was a good argument anyway!


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the ultimate goal here is to try to put gun manufacturers out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, it is.  or at least change the way they do business.
> 
> Let's look back at the tobacco companies.  What we found out through the tobacco lawsuit was that the tobacco industry was intentionally increasing nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive and marketing the product intentionally to teens.
> 
> The gun industry does the same thing, except they hike addiction to fear instead of nicotine.
> 
> You see, the gun industry made a decision, when hunting started to decline as a sport in this country, to market their products to homeowners.  If a study from the CDC found a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, they got all funding for gun studies cut.
> 
> they sold bigger guns to bad people so other people would be scared and want more guns, too.
> 
> Now, i think that the Sandy Hook case might be weak because Nancy Lanza was only moderately crazy, as opposed to her son, who was completely around the bend.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction.  Your argument is false.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.
> 
> Only 22% of households own guns.  Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use.  That's not the gun industries key market.  Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns.  The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.
Click to expand...

The owner of the store from which she bought the gun was a Bush Master employee?  Ya learn something new every day.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
Click to expand...


If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that she was "crazy" as you keep claiming? Now I asked before, and you still haven't produced any evidence that she was crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prepper = Crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, criminals will still be able to get guns, silly boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not the "criminals" I'm worried about, as most gun deaths are regular folks who just had a really bad day.
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL haven't cited the language in the constitution that gives congress authority to restrict the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Profiting off of death and misery...
Click to expand...


Again, not the "criminals" I'm worried about, as most gun deaths are regular folks who just had a really bad day. 


There you go...talking out of your ass again.......I have posted the actual facts......90% of murderers have multiple prior convictions.....70-80% of their victims also have prior criminal convictions...

It is a gun control lie that normal, non violent people simply have a bad day and murder people with guns......the anti gunner who proposes that concept is the one barely holding on to their own control.....and projects that onto everyone else.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
Click to expand...



If the guns were in her own home......they were secured...he murdered her and then took the guns.


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> *Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires*
> _September 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM EDT_
> 
> JIM LEHRER: Now, the assault weapons ban. The ten-year-old law expires at midnight tonight. It outlaws 19 types of military- style semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as ammunition clips holding more than ten rounds.
> 
> Republican congressional leaders declined to bring reauthorizing legislation to the floor for debate or vote, saying there were not enough votes to pass it.
> 
> We get reaction to the end of the ban now from two very different perspectives. Gil Kerlikowske is chief of the Seattle Police Department. Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association. Chief Kerlikowske, first, what is your reading of what the impact of the failure to extend this ban is going to be?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, I think it sends a terrible signal to America’s law enforcement officers. This was a ban that ten years ago was put into place because of chiefs and sheriffs and the legitimate organizations that represent line officers and deputies.
> 
> I think it also sends a terrible message to America’s communities. The last thing we need are more military-style assault weapons on the streets of this country.
> 
> JIM LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind, Chief, that the lifting of the ban will in fact cause that to happen? There will be more of these weapons going on the streets?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: There’s no question that there will be more weapons on the streets. Right now, the companies are taking orders in advance of the sunset provision.
> 
> We know that people will buy them and that unfortunately they will get stolen from their homes and out of their cars. And they are going to proliferate on our streets.
> 
> JIM LEHRER: And the end result of that proliferation would be what in your opinion?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: A couple of things: One is that our law enforcement officers, my officers in Seattle, the others around this country, face enough danger right now.
> 
> They do not need to face the additional danger of additional weapons. We also know that when the family gun becomes an assault weapon, then that’s the gun that’s going to be stolen and will get out on our streets.
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires




Do you realize that the assault weapon ban did nothing to effect crime right?

There are 3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands and at most 2 a year are used for crime....do you understand those numbers?  The only reason they target assault rifles now is because they think they can get them.........

Where exactly are you going with your posts?


----------



## Crixus

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
Click to expand...


You know, since you mention it, the car with the keys in it, didn't that happen? But yeah, agree with this 100%. I make my guns inert.


----------



## Crixus

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the guns were in her own home......they were secured...he murdered her and then took the guns.
Click to expand...


She is dead. He is dead. No longer an issue as both of them being, well dead makes it a moot point.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna hear something funny? Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to own guns?
> 
> Now, I fired a shitload of guns.  It's kind of a job requirement when you are in the Army.  But I've never owned one and have no desire to.
> 
> I just see no good reason why a civilian should have a gun.  Self Defense never happens with them, at least not enough to balance out the deaths they cause. They make us less free because the government arms itself more than we do. (40% of gun sales are to government agencies.)
> 
> 33,000 deaths.
> 70,000 injuries
> $270,000,000,000 in economic losses.
> 
> EVERY YEAR.
Click to expand...



And every year Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times..........according to bill clinton.......and all the money those save...

And perspective on gun deaths...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

And here is the FBI table 8……it is a great table because it goes back4 years to show the rates of decrease….

FBI Table 2004

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2008

2014 table…..

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

From 2014…..and I added 2011……

2006

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 and 

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports - 2000

gun murder rate 1997 -2000


1997..... 10,729
1998.....   9,257
1999.....   8,480
2000.....   8,493
2001.....   8,719
2002...     9,369
2003....    9,638
2004.....   9,385 
2005....  10,158
2006....   10,225
2007         10,129
2008--         9,528
2009--        9,199
2010-          8,874
2011--         8,653
2012--         8,897
2013--         8,454
2014--         8,124
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505
*
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

Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39

*Total: 69  ( in a country of 320 million people)


Gun Suicide:  21,175



Non gun suicide:  19,974*


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would  push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

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 drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*

*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39

*Total: 69  ( in a country of 320 million people)
Gun Suicide:  21,175
Non gun suicide:  19,974*

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*
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Crixus said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, since you mention it, the car with the keys in it, didn't that happen? But yeah, agree with this 100%. I make my guns inert.
Click to expand...


As do I.  My first line of defense is our dog, she will alert us in plenty of time to lock and load.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna hear something funny? Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to own guns?
> 
> Now, I fired a shitload of guns.  It's kind of a job requirement when you are in the Army.  But I've never owned one and have no desire to.
> 
> I just see no good reason why a civilian should have a gun.  Self Defense never happens with them, at least not enough to balance out the deaths they cause. They make us less free because the government arms itself more than we do. (40% of gun sales are to government agencies.)
> 
> 33,000 deaths.
> 70,000 injuries
> $270,000,000,000 in economic losses.
> 
> EVERY YEAR.
Click to expand...



So......liar....

gun suicides.....21,175
Accidental gun deaths...  505
Gun murder ......8,124

Of the gun murder...70-80% of the victims have prior criminal records.........not normal, law abiding citizens going about their day......


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna hear something funny? Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to own guns?
> 
> Now, I fired a shitload of guns.  It's kind of a job requirement when you are in the Army.  But I've never owned one and have no desire to.
> 
> I just see no good reason why a civilian should have a gun.  Self Defense never happens with them, at least not enough to balance out the deaths they cause. They make us less free because the government arms itself more than we do. (40% of gun sales are to government agencies.)
> 
> 33,000 deaths.
> 70,000 injuries
> $270,000,000,000 in economic losses.
> 
> EVERY YEAR.
Click to expand...



Oh....and I just posted the story this weekend.....gun suicides are down......suicide by poison is up....

U.S. suicide rates up, especially for women - CNN.com

In both 1999 and 2014, firearms were the most common method by which men took their own lives, *although the proportion of all suicides in men that were firearm-related decreased from 61.7% to 55.4%. *

Among women, poisoning was the most common method in 2014 and accounted for 34.1% of suicides, down from 36% in 1999.


Not to forget that suicides in Japan, china and South Korea, which prohibit gun ownership for normal people and only allow criminals and cops to have guns......their suicide rates are higher than ours........as is France and Poland and several other European countries that have stricter gun control....extreme gun control laws....


----------



## Crixus

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna hear something funny? Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to own guns?
> 
> Now, I fired a shitload of guns.  It's kind of a job requirement when you are in the Army.  But I've never owned one and have no desire to.
> 
> I just see no good reason why a civilian should have a gun.  Self Defense never happens with them, at least not enough to balance out the deaths they cause. They make us less free because the government arms itself more than we do. (40% of gun sales are to government agencies.)
> 
> 33,000 deaths.
> 70,000 injuries
> $270,000,000,000 in economic losses.
> 
> EVERY YEAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....and I just posted the story this weekend.....gun suicides are down......suicide by poison is up....
Click to expand...


Wow. That is another thing, chemicals. You can get some crazy poisonous/caustic/corrosive stuff by nearly going to home depot. Not being a smart ass, but how do those companies avoid litigation when they are misused?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that most gun control laws are aimed at the "law abiding" population of America, and would be highly unlikely to control any of the true violence and mayhem caused by gangs and criminals, as this segment of the population largely IGNORES laws.  Hence the reason why we call them "criminals."  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun deaths are
> 
> Suicides (19,500)
> Domestic Arguments (about 50% of the 11,000 homicides every year)
> Accidents ( about 800 a year)
> 
> So if we drop the death rate from 32,000 a year to maybe 5000 a year, I'm kind of good with that. The police will have a lot more free time on their hands to deal with the "criminals" (usually just poor people making bad choices, but never mind) because they won't be writing up a shitloads of reports on suicides and domestic murders.
> 
> Again, I don't worry about the "Criminal".  As long as we have the racism and economic inequality you are ooooh, sooo good with, we are going to have crime.
> 
> Since we can't deal with the underlying cause, we can at least deal with the symptom - too many guns in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...



Yes....forget about the fact that in domestic murder you also have the dymamic of a long history of violence in the home, multiple police contacts before the killing and drug and alcohol abuse....and those are the factors that lead to the killing, not the gun...twit.


Homes that are normal and without histories of violence and crime, with no previous contacts with police and no drug or alcohol abuse do not end up with dead family members....twit.


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> *August 9, 2004*-*States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a  list  of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support “renewing and strengthening” the federal Assault Weapons Ban.*  Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland  Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York  Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.
> 
> *June 2004*-A  study  commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, “Attacks with semiautomatics-including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines-result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” The study also reports, “Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful.”
> 
> *April 27, 2004*-Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, “There is a reason that these [assault] weapons  are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement.”
> 
> *May 2003*-The Violence Policy Center releases the “Officer Down” report, which finds that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.
> 
> *1994*-In an analysis of assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) writes, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guys in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”   The ATF describes assault weapons as “large capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use … Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces.”
> 
> http://csgv.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mass-produced-mayhem-231x300.jpg




Wow....all of the crap from the anti gun crap organizations.........

again.....3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands....at most 2 are used in any given year for crime of any kind......do you understand those numbers?

In the year of Sandy Hook and the colorado theater shooting......those were the two cases of AR-15s used in a crime......and 3,750,000 of them in private hands that were not used in crime....


Those studies are lying to you....


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> *August 9, 2004*-*States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a  list  of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support “renewing and strengthening” the federal Assault Weapons Ban.*  Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland  Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York  Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.
> 
> *June 2004*-A  study  commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, “Attacks with semiautomatics-including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines-result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” The study also reports, “Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful.”
> 
> *April 27, 2004*-Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, “There is a reason that these [assault] weapons  are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement.”
> 
> *May 2003*-The Violence Policy Center releases the “Officer Down” report, which finds that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.
> 
> *1994*-In an analysis of assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) writes, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guys in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”   The ATF describes assault weapons as “large capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use … Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces.”
> 
> http://csgv.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mass-produced-mayhem-231x300.jpg




this is an actual bit of research by the FBI on all rifles used to commit murder....vs. other weapons....

AR-15s are used in fewer crimes than knives or hands and feet....far fewer..

FBI table 8 2013...

FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Murder by weapon 2013:

*All rifles: 285 (that means AR-15s kill even fewer than that)*

*Knives: 1,490*

*Hands and feet: 687*

And gun murders by all categories of rifle... have been going down....

*2009...351

2010...367

2011...332

2012...298

2013...285*


Do you understand that Assault rifles are not an issue with any sort of crime......can you actually see that....?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally. Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most gun deaths are people who live in the home where the gun is kept....  so no, we are targeting the right people.
> 
> There'd be 26 kids and teachers alive today if Nancy Lanza couldn't buy guns.
Click to expand...



Wrong.....it was shown that the twits doing the research actually counted criminals bringing guns to the home as guns in the home......moron.

1,500,000 million times a year guns are used to save lives and stop violent crime according to bill clinton....

1,500,000 vs. 26 tragic deaths...which is bigger twit.


----------



## Iceweasel

Valerie said:


> feel free to follow the link i provided, to see the rest of the piece...  you're welcome.


Do your own homework.


----------



## Valerie

2aguy said:


> Do you understand that Assault rifles are not an issue with any sort of crime.....*.can you actually see that....?*




so mass murder isn't a crime in your view..?


----------



## Valerie

Iceweasel said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to follow the link i provided, to see the rest of the piece...  you're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own homework.
Click to expand...



you should tell that to all those law enforcement and weapons professionals cited in those links you ignore.


i'm certainly not going to do your homework for you.


----------



## Iceweasel

Valerie said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to follow the link i provided, to see the rest of the piece...  you're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should tell that to all those law enforcement and weapons professionals cited in those links you ignore.
> 
> 
> i'm certainly not going to do your homework for you.
Click to expand...

I explained to you that they are political appointments and I countered the bullshit with the study that proves them wrong. Clinging to stupidity is a poor solution.


----------



## Liminal

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is obvious.  Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible.  These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:
> 
> 
> Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
> Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
> Was someone harmed?
Click to expand...

This kind of reasoning is exactly why Hilary is a sure loser.


----------



## Valerie

Valerie said:


> *August 9, 2004*-*States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a  list  of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support “renewing and strengthening” the federal Assault Weapons Ban.*  Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland  Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York  Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.
> 
> *June 2004*-A  study  commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, “Attacks with semiautomatics-including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines-result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” The study also reports, “Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful.”
> 
> *April 27, 2004*-Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, “There is a reason that these [assault] weapons  are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement.”
> 
> *May 2003*-The Violence Policy Center releases the “Officer Down” report, which finds that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.
> 
> *1994*-In an analysis of assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) writes, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guys in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”   The ATF describes assault weapons as “large capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use … Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces.”
> 
> http://csgv.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mass-produced-mayhem-231x300.jpg




*What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons*
What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.


----------



## Valerie

Iceweasel said:


> I explained to you that they are political appointments and I countered the bullshit with the study that proves them wrong. Clinging to stupidity is a poor solution.




no, you proved nothing... you should take your own advice.^

it's hard to think with your head up your ass, but give it a try.


----------



## Crixus

Valerie said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *August 9, 2004*-*States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a  list  of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support “renewing and strengthening” the federal Assault Weapons Ban.*  Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland  Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York  Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.
> 
> *June 2004*-A  study  commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, “Attacks with semiautomatics-including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines-result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” The study also reports, “Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful.”
> 
> *April 27, 2004*-Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, “There is a reason that these [assault] weapons  are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement.”
> 
> *May 2003*-The Violence Policy Center releases the “Officer Down” report, which finds that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.
> 
> *1994*-In an analysis of assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) writes, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guys in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”   The ATF describes assault weapons as “large capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use … Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces.”
> 
> http://csgv.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mass-produced-mayhem-231x300.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons*
> What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
> Coalition to Stop Gun Violence - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.
Click to expand...


The only thing Bill Clinton's law did was remove the people from society who were using the weapons to kill other people which were typically black folks shooting other black folls. That's why bill clinton got after those black lives matter folks. California has banned features, the magazine for instance, ten rounds and I think it needs to be non removable. By pushing the back take down pin the upper reciever flips Hu and you charge the weapon with a stripper clip. Useless jesture. No "flash hided". Dumb. No bayonet lug. Huh? Honestly people should feel insulted by that shit.


----------



## Liminal

Valerie said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *August 9, 2004*-*States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a  list  of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support “renewing and strengthening” the federal Assault Weapons Ban.*  Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland  Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York  Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.
> 
> *June 2004*-A  study  commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, “Attacks with semiautomatics-including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines-result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” The study also reports, “Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful.”
> 
> *April 27, 2004*-Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, “There is a reason that these [assault] weapons  are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement.”
> 
> *May 2003*-The Violence Policy Center releases the “Officer Down” report, which finds that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.
> 
> *1994*-In an analysis of assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) writes, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guys in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”   The ATF describes assault weapons as “large capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use … Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces.”
> 
> http://csgv.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mass-produced-mayhem-231x300.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons*
> What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
> Coalition to Stop Gun Violence - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.
Click to expand...


Talk about interesting statistics, see if you can guess which group comprising 13% of the population commits 52% of the homicides.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity knives, push buttons and stiletto knives are illegal and or controlled.  Do you feel this is ridiculous too?  Some guns and knives are produced for one reason and one reason alone - to kill human beings.  A sane society controls things which put at risk the health and welfare of its citizens.
Click to expand...



Yes....that is stupid too........criminals carry knives illegally all the time.....they are the ones who go on to use them to injure or kill....not the normal, law abiding person who has one for self defense, daily use and emergencies.......

A sane society concentrates on keeping criminals locked up......not disarming people who don't use knives and guns to commit crimes.


----------



## 2aguy

Crixus said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her guns were locked in a safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.
Click to expand...



Wrong....her kid was planning the attack for 2 years.....most of these killers plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, so even if his mother didn't have any guns in the home he would have gotten weapons...just like the 19 year old kid in Britain who ordered a Glock 19 over the Dark Web....in a country that is an island, confiscated guns and has extreme gun control laws.....any other gun would have killed as many people at Sandy Hook...it was a gun free zone...no one was armed to stop him.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
Click to expand...




Do you realize that with all those shots fired....no one was killed...or even seriously wounded.....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
Click to expand...



You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right?  Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?

And again...with all that fire....they didn't kill anyone......

We have gun control to handle these guys...had they survived they would be arrested and put in prison......

And notice...all the Rifles that were not used that day to commit an illegal act...


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
Click to expand...



The north hollywood shootout......no one was killed.....it was after the Assault Weapon Ban...how did that work out....?

It happened 3 years after you morons said Assault Rifles were illegal......twits...

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally-modified fully automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1s (an AK-47 variant), a Bushmaster XM15 Dissipator, and a HK-91 rifle with high capacity drum magazines as well as a Beretta 92FS pistol.


----------



## g5000

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here.  They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.
> 
> Only 22% of households own guns.  Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use.  That's not the gun industries key market.  Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns.  The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.
Click to expand...

Connecticut law did not ban the Bush Master.  Therefore, the families have no case against the gun manufacturer.


----------



## g5000

2aguy said:


> You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right?  Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?


The AWB banned the sale of new weapons.  It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines.  And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is obvious.  Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible.  These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:
> 
> 
> Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
> Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
> Was someone harmed?
Click to expand...



Twit.......those weapons were already illegal because of you guys....and guess what..........they robbed a bank and attempted to murder people....they could already be arrested for that, and could have done the same thing with pistols.......

As long as they are not selling guns to known felons...which is already illegal...no....they don't have a duty...since civilians can also own those weapons and armor...or should be able to anyway...

The police and military do not get the monopoly on weapons and armor........that is how you end up with mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing...do you nuts ever study human history.....?


----------



## 2aguy

g5000 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right?  Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?
> 
> 
> 
> The AWB banned the sale of new weapons.  It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines.  And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.
Click to expand...



They have absolute bans on fully automatic weapons in Europe....in Britain and France....and fully automatic weapons are the most common tool of their criminal groups....in fact I just posted about the increase in fully automatic weapons showing up in London crime....and how they are being used to shoot at police more often.....

The assault weapon ban didn't do anything because normal people were not using them for crime, and neither were criminals....


----------



## Crixus

2aguy said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her guns were locked in a safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....her kid was planning the attack for 2 years.....most of these killers plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, so even if his mother didn't have any guns in the home he would have gotten weapons...just like the 19 year old kid in Britain who ordered a Glock 19 over the Dark Web....in a country that is an island, confiscated guns and has extreme gun control laws.....any other gun would have killed as many people at Sandy Hook...it was a gun free zone...no one was armed to stop him.
Click to expand...


It was his mother's fault. She knew he was unstable. She and the "well he shot his mom and took her keys" is no excuse because he had to have a gun to shoot her with in order to get the keys to go shoot a bunch of little kids. Mrs. Lanze, no matter how tragic enabled her son to arm him self and shoot up a school.


----------



## g5000

2aguy said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right?  Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?
> 
> 
> 
> The AWB banned the sale of new weapons.  It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines.  And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They have absolute bans on fully automatic weapons in Europe....in Britain and France....and fully automatic weapons are the most common tool of their criminal groups....in fact I just posted about the increase in fully automatic weapons showing up in London crime....and how they are being used to shoot at police more often.....
> 
> The assault weapon ban didn't do anything because normal people were not using them for crime, and neither were criminals....
Click to expand...

You have extremely selective vision.  Strict gun laws are very effective at reducing violent crime and homicides "in Europe....in Britain and France".  This is a fact.  To deny this fact is to destroy your integrity and undermine your arguments.


----------



## g5000

I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.


----------



## 2aguy

And here you have the myth that these rifles with normal magazines pose more of a public threat.....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN

*Abstract: *
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? 

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

 News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined. 

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. 

*In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.*

* Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.*


----------



## 2aguy

g5000 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right?  Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?
> 
> 
> 
> The AWB banned the sale of new weapons.  It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines.  And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They have absolute bans on fully automatic weapons in Europe....in Britain and France....and fully automatic weapons are the most common tool of their criminal groups....in fact I just posted about the increase in fully automatic weapons showing up in London crime....and how they are being used to shoot at police more often.....
> 
> The assault weapon ban didn't do anything because normal people were not using them for crime, and neither were criminals....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have extremely selective vision.  Strict gun laws are very effective at reducing violent crime and homicides "in Europe....in Britain and France".  This is a fact.  To deny this fact is to destroy your integrity and undermine your arguments.
Click to expand...



Wrong....violent crime is 2 x ours in Britain......their criminals just don't commit murder as much....and again...their criminals get all the guns they want.....I have posted over and over how easy it is to get fully automatic weapons in Britain...and how the gun crime level in britain did not change after they conficated guns and imposed extreme gun contrtol..


IN Fact..I also posted that their gun crime rate went up 4% last year....which according to you is not possible.....


----------



## paulitician

Tyranny in the name of the 'Poor Children.' The Gun Grabbers are truly shameful folks. They continue to use these poor dead children and their families, to thwart the Constitution. Can't stoop any lower... Or can they?


----------



## g5000

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43


----------



## 2aguy

g5000 said:


> I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.




They haven't......you are wrong.......more AMericans own and carry guns...the gun crime rate has gone down, not up......and not one of your gun control laws keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, or mass shooters......

Did you understand the point.....the British gun crime rate did not change after the guns were confiscated.......?  Do you understand that......?

Those European countries had low gun murder rates before they enacted their gun control.....and the criminals still get the guns they want and need...the only people who can't get the guns are the normal, law abiding people who don't use them for crime.....gun control does not work.


----------



## Fair&Balanced

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......




More liberal stupidity on display. If a drunk driver kills your family, can you sue GM? Duh


----------



## 2aguy

g5000 said:


> I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.




Here you go....more on fully automatic weapons in the land of confiscation and extreme gun control....Britain...

4/19/16  auto weapons increase

Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets

Scotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
-------

New figures seen by the Standard show that police seized 18 sub-machine guns from criminals in the capital last year, compared to 13 similar weapons in 2014.

Police also revealed that sub-machine guns had been fired in London 11 times in the last 12 months, compared to seven times the year before.

In October last year three plain clothes officers escaped injury despite being shot at by a sub-machine gun - also thought to be a Skorpion - when they were carrying out inquiries in Willesden.

*Today police said there had been a “worrying” increase in the use of automatic weapons but they were seizing more of the weapons from criminals.*


----------



## g5000

Intentional homicide rate in the UK: 1.0

Intentional homicide rate in France: 1.0

Intentional homicide rate in the US: 3.8


----------



## 2aguy

g5000 said:


> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43





Look.......they don't use guns to commit murder....but their gun crime rate is the same as it was before they confiscated their guns......their criminals get guns...they don't use them to commit murder.......why is that so hard for you nutters to understand......?


----------



## g5000

2aguy said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....more on fully automatic weapons in the land of confiscation and extreme gun control....Britain...
> 
> 4/19/16  auto weapons increase
> 
> Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets
> 
> Scotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
> -------
> 
> New figures seen by the Standard show that police seized 18 sub-machine guns from criminals in the capital last year, compared to 13 similar weapons in 2014.
> 
> Police also revealed that sub-machine guns had been fired in London 11 times in the last 12 months, compared to seven times the year before.
> 
> In October last year three plain clothes officers escaped injury despite being shot at by a sub-machine gun - also thought to be a Skorpion - when they were carrying out inquiries in Willesden.
> 
> *Today police said there had been a “worrying” increase in the use of automatic weapons but they were seizing more of the weapons from criminals.*
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh, *EIGHTEEN* sub-machine guns!  Up from FOURTEEN. Golly!

Doesn't even come close to comparing to the US.  Not even a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Idiot.


----------



## 2aguy

g5000 said:


> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43




And more from Britain...this should not be happening.....but it is ....you are wrong.....

3/9/16

Birmingham’s Gun Quarter could have name change to avoid crime link
Birmingham shootings - police to 're-double' their efforts to tackle worrying increase

*Birmingham is in the grip of a spate of gun crime according to the region’s top policeman who admitted today that shootings are happening in some areas with “concerning regularity.”*

Deputy Chief Constable Dave Thompson told the West Midlands Police and Crime Board that he had not seen as many shootings in the five years that he had been with the force.

Describing how the problem of gun crime had “come back” he said he was growing increasingly concerned about the availability of weapons and ammunition on the streets.

But he also vowed to take on the gun gangsters saying he was confident that those responsible for the spate of recent shootings would be brought to justice with support from local communities.

Speaking about the rise in gun crime he said: “It’s fair to say that the problem has come back and we need to re-double our efforts.

“We have had some very serious incidents and there has been a concerning regularity of shootings that I have not seen in the five years that I have been here.



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


----------



## 2aguy

g5000 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....more on fully automatic weapons in the land of confiscation and extreme gun control....Britain...
> 
> 4/19/16  auto weapons increase
> 
> Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets
> 
> Scotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
> -------
> 
> New figures seen by the Standard show that police seized 18 sub-machine guns from criminals in the capital last year, compared to 13 similar weapons in 2014.
> 
> Police also revealed that sub-machine guns had been fired in London 11 times in the last 12 months, compared to seven times the year before.
> 
> In October last year three plain clothes officers escaped injury despite being shot at by a sub-machine gun - also thought to be a Skorpion - when they were carrying out inquiries in Willesden.
> 
> *Today police said there had been a “worrying” increase in the use of automatic weapons but they were seizing more of the weapons from criminals.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhh, *EIGHTEEN* sub-machine guns!  Up from FOURTEEN. Golly!
> 
> Doesn't even come close to comparing to the US.  Not even a drop in the proverbial bucket.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...



Our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...twit....theirs do....and they prefer them over there.........they are an Island.....and their criminals are importing fully automatic weapons at will....


----------



## g5000

2aguy said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....more on fully automatic weapons in the land of confiscation and extreme gun control....Britain...
> 
> 4/19/16  auto weapons increase
> 
> Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets
> 
> Scotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
> -------
> 
> New figures seen by the Standard show that police seized 18 sub-machine guns from criminals in the capital last year, compared to 13 similar weapons in 2014.
> 
> Police also revealed that sub-machine guns had been fired in London 11 times in the last 12 months, compared to seven times the year before.
> 
> In October last year three plain clothes officers escaped injury despite being shot at by a sub-machine gun - also thought to be a Skorpion - when they were carrying out inquiries in Willesden.
> 
> *Today police said there had been a “worrying” increase in the use of automatic weapons but they were seizing more of the weapons from criminals.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhh, *EIGHTEEN* sub-machine guns!  Up from FOURTEEN. Golly!
> 
> Doesn't even come close to comparing to the US.  Not even a drop in the proverbial bucket.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...twit....theirs do....and they prefer them over there.........they are an Island.....and their criminals are importing fully automatic weapons at will....
Click to expand...

Again, does not even compare to the US. Not even close.


----------



## g5000

The very reason full automatic weapons were banned by Ronald Reagan in 1986 is because of Miama being a "machine gun Mecca" during that period.


----------



## g5000

EIGHTEEN sub-machine guns confiscated in the UK!  Ohhh!

We take you now to Los Angeles:


*Hundreds Of Military-Grade Machine Guns, Ammunition Seized In Fontana*
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015...de-machine-guns-ammunition-seized-in-fontana/


> With Durant’s consent, the officers searched the storage units and found several illegal AK47’s.
> 
> With a search warrant and a more thorough search of the storage units, more than 300 firearms, military-grade machine guns, scrap parts to make illegal weapons and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition of various caliber were found.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that most gun control laws are aimed at the "law abiding" population of America, and would be highly unlikely to control any of the true violence and mayhem caused by gangs and criminals, as this segment of the population largely IGNORES laws.  Hence the reason why we call them "criminals."  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun deaths are
> 
> Suicides (19,500)
> Domestic Arguments (about 50% of the 11,000 homicides every year)
> Accidents ( about 800 a year)
> 
> So if we drop the death rate from 32,000 a year to maybe 5000 a year, I'm kind of good with that. The police will have a lot more free time on their hands to deal with the "criminals" (usually just poor people making bad choices, but never mind) because they won't be writing up a shitloads of reports on suicides and domestic murders.
> 
> Again, I don't worry about the "Criminal".  As long as we have the racism and economic inequality you are ooooh, sooo good with, we are going to have crime.
> 
> Since we can't deal with the underlying cause, we can at least deal with the symptom - too many guns in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...


We can drop it by more than half by not counting suicides.  
Suicide is not a crime it is a choice. Many countries with far stricter gun laws than us have suicide rates virtually identical to ours and some have even more.

Suicide has nothing to do with guns and thinking people who don't have access to a firearm won't still commit suicide is naive at best.


----------



## Contumacious

g5000 said:


> EIGHTEEN sub-machine guns confiscated in the UK!  Ohhh!
> 
> We take you now to Los Angeles:
> 
> 
> *Hundreds Of Military-Grade Machine Guns, Ammunition Seized In Fontana*
> 
> 
> 
> With Durant’s consent, the officers searched the storage units and found several illegal AK47’s.
> 
> With a search warrant and a more thorough search of the storage units, more than 300 firearms, military-grade machine guns, scrap parts to make illegal weapons and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition of various caliber were found.
Click to expand...



REPEATING


President Clinton will nominate a fascist scumbag to SCOTUS who will quickly discover that Americans are slaves who do not the have the right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

We will them depend on the Mexican Mafia to keep us supplied with firearms and ammunitions.

.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to, as they already do so and have for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to the constitutional authorization for them to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profiting off of death and misery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the police and ATF should not purchase any guns from gun manufacturers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only reason why the Police and ATF have to be armed like soldiers is that the gun industry has flooded the market with guns.
> I'm sorry you are too stupid to realize this.
> 
> When the gun industry has to start paying the loved ones of the people they kill, they will change their behavior.
Click to expand...


You can't hold a third party


JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gang members and other violent criminals will continue to get weapons illegally. Your "gun control laws" target the wrong people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most gun deaths are people who live in the home where the gun is kept....  so no, we are targeting the right people.
> 
> There'd be 26 kids and teachers alive today if Nancy Lanza couldn't buy guns.
Click to expand...


Most murder victims in general were killed by someone they knew so again that has nothing to do with guns and more to do with human nature


----------



## Skull Pilot

Crixus said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...


Not a good comparison.

Most gun dealers by law are required to observe a waiting period after a sale.  People can't walk in to a store and say "Hey, sell me a gun so I can go home and shoot my wife"


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners.  It that correct?
> 
> Watch this before you answer:
> 
> 
> Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is obvious.  Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible.  These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:
> 
> 
> Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
> Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
> Was someone harmed?
Click to expand...


So if someone stabs someone to death with a Ka Bar blade do we sue the manufacturer?

If someone uses a Louisville Slugger to make mush out of someone's skull do we sue the manufacturer?

And the term "military style" is meaningless.

No one can buy military grade weapons

This "military assault" rifle I can buy 






Is absolutely no different in any aspect than this not considered "military style" ranch rifle


----------



## Contumacious

Skull Pilot said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good comparison.
> 
> Most gun dealers by law are required to observe a waiting period after a sale.  People can't walk in to a store and say "Hey, sell me a gun so I can go home and shoot my wife"
Click to expand...



If you live in a facist/socialist state like California then drive to 


*ARIZONA* one of the friendliest to gun aficionados


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, since you mention it, the car with the keys in it, didn't that happen? But yeah, agree with this 100%. I make my guns inert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do I.  My first line of defense is our dog, she will alert us in plenty of time to lock and load.
Click to expand...


So every time your dog barks you go to your gun safe, unlock it, get you gun, load it then go to see what Fido is barking at?

Not buying it

You most likely get up and say "Shut up, Fido" and then look out the door.


----------



## g5000

Contumacious said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EIGHTEEN sub-machine guns confiscated in the UK!  Ohhh!
> 
> We take you now to Los Angeles:
> 
> 
> *Hundreds Of Military-Grade Machine Guns, Ammunition Seized In Fontana*
> 
> 
> 
> With Durant’s consent, the officers searched the storage units and found several illegal AK47’s.
> 
> With a search warrant and a more thorough search of the storage units, more than 300 firearms, military-grade machine guns, scrap parts to make illegal weapons and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition of various caliber were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REPEATING
> 
> 
> President Clinton will nominate a fascist scumbag to SCOTUS who will quickly discover that Americans are slaves who do not the have the right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.
> 
> We will them depend on the Mexican Mafia to keep us supplied with firearms and ammunitions.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Rubes like you are why I say the gun manufacturers and retailers of America are probably burning candles in the hopes  of a Clinton presidency.

After all, the OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ fearmongering was one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the gun makers' history.  They are probably hoping to continue that success with a HITLEREEZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ follow-up stratagem.  They know you rubes have memories like that of goldfish and will get back in the line for the same piss over and over and over and over again.  

I would not be surprised if the gun makers were making dark money donations to her campaign.


----------



## Contumacious

g5000 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EIGHTEEN sub-machine guns confiscated in the UK!  Ohhh!
> 
> We take you now to Los Angeles:
> 
> 
> *Hundreds Of Military-Grade Machine Guns, Ammunition Seized In Fontana*
> 
> 
> 
> With Durant’s consent, the officers searched the storage units and found several illegal AK47’s.
> 
> With a search warrant and a more thorough search of the storage units, more than 300 firearms, military-grade machine guns, scrap parts to make illegal weapons and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition of various caliber were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REPEATING
> 
> 
> President Clinton will nominate a fascist scumbag to SCOTUS who will quickly discover that Americans are slaves who do not the have the right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.
> 
> We will them depend on the Mexican Mafia to keep us supplied with firearms and ammunitions.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubes like you are why I say the gun manufacturers and retailers of America are probably burning candles in the hopes  of a Clinton presidency.
> 
> After all, the OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ fearmongering was one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the gun makers' history.  They are probably hoping to continue that success with a HITLEREEZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ follow-up stratagem.  They know you rubes have memories like that of goldfish and will get back in the line for the same piss over and over and over and over again.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the gun makers were making dark money donations to her campaign.
Click to expand...




*REPEATING*


President Clinton will nominate a fascist scumbag to SCOTUS who will quickly discover that Americans are slaves who do not the have the right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

We will them depend on the Mexican Mafia to keep us supplied with firearms and ammunition.


.


----------



## Skull Pilot

g5000 said:


> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43


There are other violent crimes besides homicides you know

And in the UK they don't classify a any death as a murder unless someone is convicted of murder

House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

Look at section 2 paragraph 35

*. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction,*

We call any death not deemed suicide or an accident a murder


----------



## nat4900

Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.

Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable. 

This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.


----------



## TNHarley

Being able to sue people who didn't do anything is setting a HUGE precedent.
If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
You limp wristed statists are a DRAIN to our country.
No.
Fuckin.
Shit.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Lots of people can file frivolous lawsuits. Why should gun-rights-haters be any different?

More waste of time, more waste of court resources. But that's been the American way, for the last few decades.


----------



## toxicmedia

The gun control arguments the left puts through from time to time, are as ridiculous as the right fighting gay marriage.

People will kill each other with baseball bats, knives, ropes, cars, and whatever else they can find. Bans on gay marriage won't stop people from being gay.


----------



## Rozman

Can someone,anyone explain the basis for a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer other then the gun malfunctioned
or failed to perform as advertised?....

If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....


----------



## Bill Angel

The same argument would hold true in photography. Canon and Nikon make great cameras, and they may occasionally sell them to people who use them for nefarious purposes like creating child pornography. But I don't think anyone believes that the camera manufacturers should be held liable if their products are put to such a use.


----------



## nat4900

Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i


----------



## JoeB131

Harry Dresden said:


> so adam would have got them from someone else....



The guy had no job, no money, and frankly, probably would have looked just seedy enough to make even most gun dealers look at him twice.  

But I'd be all for suing whoever gave him a gun.


----------



## Wilbur Right

TNHarley said:


> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.





Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.

But let's say I own a gun shop. Right outside of Chicago. And my gun shop sells a LOT of guns. Straw buyers, gang bangers everybody knows where to get guns. And the gun manufacturers know of my reputation and they keep selling me guns.

Should that be stopped by suing the gun manufacturers?


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.



Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.


----------



## nat4900

Rozman said:


> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....



The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.


----------



## Confounding

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i



He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.


----------



## TNHarley

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i


 We can legally obtain surface to air missiles, so your argument fails the logic test.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> So......liar....
> 
> gun suicides.....21,175
> Accidental gun deaths... 505
> Gun murder ......8,124



you got your figures, I have mine.  But mine are right.  

Anyway, too many gun deaths no matter what the figures are.   Too high a price to pay for your fetish. 

Here's an idea.  We need a gun tax.  To compensate us for the 270 BILLION lost every year, I think a tax of $1000 per gun owned would be about right.


----------



## TNHarley

nat4900 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
Click to expand...

 Why? Why shouldn't citizens be able to have the same weapons their government has? ESPECIALLY when they have a second amendment.


----------



## Confounding

TNHarley said:


> Why? Why shouldn't citizens be able to have the same weapons their government has? ESPECIALLY when they have a second amendment.



"Because at some point somebody might use one of those weapons for bad. Clearly lack of that weapon would have prevented the crime right...right?"


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> There are other violent crimes besides homicides you know
> 
> And in the UK they don't classify a any death as a murder unless someone is convicted of murder
> 
> House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
> 
> Look at section 2 paragraph 35
> 
> *. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction,*
> 
> We call any death not deemed suicide or an accident a murder



I think you are misinterpreting the British rules, but thats okay, man.  You need to live in your own fantasy world.


----------



## TNHarley

Wilbur Right said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.
> 
> But let's say I own a gun shop. Right outside of Chicago. And my gun shop sells a LOT of guns. Straw buyers, gang bangers everybody knows where to get guns. And the gun manufacturers know of my reputation and they keep selling me guns.
> 
> Should that be stopped by suing the gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...

Its the CONSUMERS choice. THEY are the responsible party. Do you know what responsible means?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens.



On what constitutional basis?



nat4900 said:


> The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i



That's your opinion.

If I were to hose you down with deer musk, would you sue the deer and the packaging company?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
Click to expand...


On what constitutional basis?


----------



## Confounding

Billy_Kinetta said:


> On what constitutional basis?



"Constitution be damned! My feelings and assumptions are more important!"


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Confounding said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.
Click to expand...


It's all about money.  DEEP POCKETS. PERIOD.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Confounding said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what constitutional basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Constitution be damned! My feelings and assumptions are more important!"
Click to expand...


That is precisely their thought process.


----------



## BluesLegend

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.



You obviously are ignorant of how many laws there are governing knives. There went your credibility


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are other violent crimes besides homicides you know
> 
> And in the UK they don't classify a any death as a murder unless someone is convicted of murder
> 
> House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
> 
> Look at section 2 paragraph 35
> 
> *. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction,*
> 
> We call any death not deemed suicide or an accident a murder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting the British rules, but thats okay, man.  You need to live in your own fantasy world.
Click to expand...


Then by all means clarify them


----------



## whitehall

Let's sue Ford for hit and run deaths. While we are at it why not sue the razor blade companies for suicides committed with their product?


----------



## BluesLegend

Is there a single manufacturing industry in the USA that libtards are not trying to destroy?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

whitehall said:


> Let's sue Ford for hit and run deaths. While we are at it why not sue the razor blade companies for suicides committed with their product?



Don't forget hockey puck manufacturers.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

BluesLegend said:


> Is there a single manufacturing industry in the USA that libtards are not trying to destroy?



Tesla.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So......liar....
> 
> gun suicides.....21,175
> Accidental gun deaths... 505
> Gun murder ......8,124
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you got your figures, I have mine.  But mine are right.
> 
> Anyway, too many gun deaths no matter what the figures are.   Too high a price to pay for your fetish.
> 
> Here's an idea.  We need a gun tax.  To compensate us for the 270 BILLION lost every year, I think a tax of $1000 per gun owned would be about right.
Click to expand...


Then let's have a tax to vote too
How about a free speech tax

How about a search and seizure tax
or a tax to invoke the fifth amendment

If you can't pay any of these taxes on your Constitutional right s then tough shit you can't exercise them


----------



## NightFox

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..*Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens*. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i



Was it legal for the gun manufacturers to sell those guns to "common citizens"?


----------



## Crixus

Skull Pilot said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good comparison.
> 
> Most gun dealers by law are required to observe a waiting period after a sale.  People can't walk in to a store and say "Hey, sell me a gun so I can go home and shoot my wife"
Click to expand...


Yup. Here, you pass your backround check you go home with your gun. I don't agree with suing a dealer, but I can see how a person may go after them. I mean if you wanted to take it to an extrem you could say the bat or whoever does the backround check was also negligent in letting a gun go to a home where it would be used in a crime.


----------



## skookerasbil

This story is irrelevent..a political stunt, nothing more.

Gun grabbers always get giddy about stoopid stuff. But in 2016, they have never been more unpopular.........a complete non-issue in this election season.

*nOn-iSsUe!!!*


----------



## Little-Acorn

nat4900 said:


> The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i


As usual, when the leftist fanatics lose the debate, they start spouting silly lies like those.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Crixus said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good comparison.
> 
> Most gun dealers by law are required to observe a waiting period after a sale.  People can't walk in to a store and say "Hey, sell me a gun so I can go home and shoot my wife"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Here, you pass your backround check you go home with your gun. I don't agree with suing a dealer, but I can see how a person may go after them. I mean if you wanted to take it to an extrem you could say the bat or whoever does the backround check was also negligent in letting a gun go to a home where it would be used in a crime.
Click to expand...


There is no way to know that a gun will be used for once it leaves the dealer's shop.


----------



## Crixus

Contumacious said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? under what theory?  how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner.  we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good comparison.
> 
> Most gun dealers by law are required to observe a waiting period after a sale.  People can't walk in to a store and say "Hey, sell me a gun so I can go home and shoot my wife"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a facist/socialist state like California then drive to
> 
> 
> *ARIZONA* one of the friendliest to gun aficionados
Click to expand...


They are. I live in Texas. I'm a CCW holder so like Arizona I don't have to do the backround check. Love it. Just ordered a Anderson lower. Pick it up next momday.


----------



## Dale Smith

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i


and 

Sandy Hook was a live shooter drill that was passed off as a real time event and they did a horrific job of selling it. I am insulted that they have so little respect or regard for our abilities to see right through this fraud. You could drive tanks through the holes in the "official story".


----------



## Crixus

Skull Pilot said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good comparison.
> 
> Most gun dealers by law are required to observe a waiting period after a sale.  People can't walk in to a store and say "Hey, sell me a gun so I can go home and shoot my wife"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Here, you pass your backround check you go home with your gun. I don't agree with suing a dealer, but I can see how a person may go after them. I mean if you wanted to take it to an extrem you could say the bat or whoever does the backround check was also negligent in letting a gun go to a home where it would be used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way to know that a gun will be used for once it leaves the dealer's shop.
Click to expand...


Exactly. This is why sane folks know and expect adults to be responsible. This lawsuit crap is just that. Crap.


----------



## blackhawk

The stupidity of the left on display again you are supporting suing the manufacturer of legal product based on how someone who purchased the product uses it. If that makes sense to people then common sense has truly left the building.


----------



## skookerasbil

Crixus said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had no "history" of violence.  He was a withdrawn kid with autism.  If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
> 
> Also, HE was an adult.  He was 20 years old.  You cannot just commit an adult.  You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat.  IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good comparison.
> 
> Most gun dealers by law are required to observe a waiting period after a sale.  People can't walk in to a store and say "Hey, sell me a gun so I can go home and shoot my wife"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a facist/socialist state like California then drive to
> 
> 
> *ARIZONA* one of the friendliest to gun aficionados
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . Just ordered a Anderson lower. Pick it up next momday.
Click to expand...




win

enjoy my friend!!!


----------



## Dale Smith

Confounding said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.
Click to expand...


The thing was, it was all staged and phony as hell. They put little effort into selling it...they think we are just that stupid.


----------



## nat4900

Confounding said:


> He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.




Really ????? REALLY????

Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???


----------



## Timmy

Oh shut up you sanctimonious gun freaks .  You are the same people who have no problem with the right wing going to great lengths to eliminate abortions by regulating it out of existence.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Wilbur Right said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.
> 
> But let's say I own a gun shop. Right outside of Chicago. And my gun shop sells a LOT of guns. Straw buyers, gang bangers everybody knows where to get guns. And the gun manufacturers know of my reputation and they keep selling me guns.
> 
> Should that be stopped by suing the gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...



I would add that "right outside of Chicago" means across the street. 

For some reason, people actually believe there is "gun control" in Chicago.


----------



## Crixus

g5000 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EIGHTEEN sub-machine guns confiscated in the UK!  Ohhh!
> 
> We take you now to Los Angeles:
> 
> 
> *Hundreds Of Military-Grade Machine Guns, Ammunition Seized In Fontana*
> 
> 
> 
> With Durant’s consent, the officers searched the storage units and found several illegal AK47’s.
> 
> With a search warrant and a more thorough search of the storage units, more than 300 firearms, military-grade machine guns, scrap parts to make illegal weapons and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition of various caliber were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REPEATING
> 
> 
> President Clinton will nominate a fascist scumbag to SCOTUS who will quickly discover that Americans are slaves who do not the have the right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.
> 
> We will them depend on the Mexican Mafia to keep us supplied with firearms and ammunitions.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubes like you are why I say the gun manufacturers and retailers of America are probably burning candles in the hopes  of a Clinton presidency.
> 
> After all, the OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ fearmongering was one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the gun makers' history.  They are probably hoping to continue that success with a HITLEREEZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ follow-up stratagem.  They know you rubes have memories like that of goldfish and will get back in the line for the same piss over and over and over and over again.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the gun makers were making dark money donations to her campaign.
Click to expand...


I sold 500 rounds of .22 long rifle for 150 bucks. Obama bought me gun parts. Thanks Barry o.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

nat4900 said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ????? REALLY????
> 
> Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???
Click to expand...



It was reported that Lanza fired 150 rounds in 5 minutes.

None of the RWNJ arguments are valid.


----------



## Crixus

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, since you mention it, the car with the keys in it, didn't that happen? But yeah, agree with this 100%. I make my guns inert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do I.  My first line of defense is our dog, she will alert us in plenty of time to lock and load.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every time your dog barks you go to your gun safe, unlock it, get you gun, load it then go to see what Fido is barking at?
> 
> Not buying it
> 
> You most likely get up and say "Shut up, Fido" and then look out the door.
Click to expand...

 
Nope. I don't have any nutty kids, so one of my Ar's is by my bed. When I'm working the property it comes with, but it is typically loaded. When I'm out in town I have a Glock 17 which is loaded 24-7.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i




Those little babies were literally torn in two and unrecognizable as human children. 

Why do civilians need that gun and those magazines?


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....



You are one sick fuck.  No, the primary use of guns is to not kill.  And not be killed.

Unless you're talking about hunting.  You a vegetarian?  Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?


----------



## nat4900

TNHarley said:


> We can legally obtain surface to air missiles, so your argument fails the logic test.



Well, you're "right"........Somewhere in the 2nd amendment the founding fathers put in something about surface to air missiles, tanks, and (I actually saw a manufacturer advertising these) FLAME THROWERS like those used during the Viet Nam debacle......Go for it right wingers..


----------



## Dale Smith

Luddly Neddite said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ????? REALLY????
> 
> Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was reported that Lanza fired 150 rounds in 5 minutes.
> 
> None of the RWNJ arguments are valid.
Click to expand...

 
Reporting and what reality is are two very different things. I refer to it as Sandy Hoax......


----------



## kaz

Luddly Neddite said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ????? REALLY????
> 
> Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was reported that Lanza fired 150 rounds in 5 minutes.
> 
> None of the RWNJ arguments are valid.
Click to expand...


Yes, not having guns to stop him made the victims so much safer


----------



## Valerie

_Gun companies do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy. 

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years*. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.*


Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."


In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.


In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it._

_FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?

15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm_


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
Click to expand...

A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.


----------



## nat4900

TNHarley said:


> Why? Why shouldn't citizens be able to have the same weapons their government has? ESPECIALLY when they have a second amendment.




Want to have the same weapons as government based on the 2nd amendment???? 
.......THEN join a "militia" and expect to be "well regulated"


----------



## Valerie

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said *Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield. *

*"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,"* he said.

At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But *the issues at hand are more complex*, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at _Adames v. Beretta_. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say *plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.*




^ bingo


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

*A boy witness is recorded telling officers how a “bad man” suddenly came into his class in “army clothes” and firing a “bazooka”. The pupil saw his teacher get shot and knew she was dead.


Lanza fired at the youngster time and again but hit only the toy animal he was clutching. The boy “ran and ran” past the bloodied body of his headteacher.*









Here's a birthday card to Adam from his daddy. Needless to say, all those little kids don't get birthday cards any more. 






For those who think Adam came from poor circumstances
.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Valerie said:


> Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said *Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield. *
> 
> *"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,"* he said.
> 
> At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.
> 
> But *the issues at hand are more complex*, say some legal scholars.
> 
> "It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.
> 
> For an example of how this plays out, look at _Adames v. Beretta_. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.
> 
> Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say *plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.*



Of course.

Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

kaz said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick fuck.  No, the primary use of guns is to not kill.  And not be killed.
> 
> Unless you're talking about hunting.  You a vegetarian?  Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?
Click to expand...



IOW, you agree with what he wrote -

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Valerie

Rustic said:


>



it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.


----------



## Rustic

Luddly Neddite said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick fuck.  No, the primary use of guns is to not kill.  And not be killed.
> 
> Unless you're talking about hunting.  You a vegetarian?  Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you agree with what he wrote -
> 
> The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Why shouldn't citizens be able to have the same weapons their government has? ESPECIALLY when they have a second amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to have the same weapons as government based on the 2nd amendment????
> .......THEN join a "militia" and expect to be "well regulated"
Click to expand...


Never a requirement.


----------



## skookerasbil

hadit said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
Click to expand...



Not to that dope.........thinks they walk around by day and night on seek and destroy missions!! These types just will never be able to connect the dots.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Luddly Neddite said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick fuck.  No, the primary use of guns is to not kill.  And not be killed.
> 
> Unless you're talking about hunting.  You a vegetarian?  Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you agree with what he wrote -
> 
> The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.
Click to expand...


No.  The purpose is to prevent yourself and others from being killed.


----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Valerie

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said *Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield. *
> 
> *"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,"* he said.
> 
> At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.
> 
> But *the issues at hand are more complex*, say some legal scholars.
> 
> "It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.
> 
> For an example of how this plays out, look at _Adames v. Beretta_. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.
> 
> Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say *plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.
Click to expand...



gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.

and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## SuperDemocrat

These lawsuits are being allowed because anti-gun people know they can at least slow down the gun manufacturing industry.   They hope they can crush it.  The only thing they succeed at is scaring small manufacturers out of business which only leaves the bigger ones who can afford the lawsuits.


----------



## TNHarley

nat4900 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can legally obtain surface to air missiles, so your argument fails the logic test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're "right"........Somewhere in the 2nd amendment the founding fathers put in something about surface to air missiles, tanks, and (I actually saw a manufacturer advertising these) FLAME THROWERS like those used during the Viet Nam debacle......Go for it right wingers..
Click to expand...


----------



## NightFox

Valerie said:


> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.


Since when is "public safety" the responsibility of corporations? isn't that what we're supposed to be paying government for ? 

Government allowed said weapons to be sold legally, so why is that a company that sells a product legally should be held liable for how a consumer chooses to use it? shouldn't government be held liable since it's government that allowed said goods to be sold to the public in the first place?


----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said *Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield. *
> 
> *"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,"* he said.
> 
> At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.
> 
> But *the issues at hand are more complex*, say some legal scholars.
> 
> "It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.
> 
> For an example of how this plays out, look at _Adames v. Beretta_. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.
> 
> Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say *plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.
> 
> and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.
Click to expand...


----------



## nat4900

Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## ChrisL

2aguy said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her guns were locked in a safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....her kid was planning the attack for 2 years.....most of these killers plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, so even if his mother didn't have any guns in the home he would have gotten weapons...just like the 19 year old kid in Britain who ordered a Glock 19 over the Dark Web....in a country that is an island, confiscated guns and has extreme gun control laws.....any other gun would have killed as many people at Sandy Hook...it was a gun free zone...no one was armed to stop him.
Click to expand...


Oh no, no, no.  Don't you know that if guns are illegal, there will be no more murders.    Lol.


----------



## kwc57

Rozman said:


> Can someone,anyone explain the basis for a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer other then the gun malfunctioned
> or failed to perform as advertised?....
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....



You'll need to build and wear a liberal logic inducer to understand that.  They are easily made from tin foil and worn on the head.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
> If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Valerie said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said *Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield. *
> 
> *"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,"* he said.
> 
> At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.
> 
> But *the issues at hand are more complex*, say some legal scholars.
> 
> "It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.
> 
> For an example of how this plays out, look at _Adames v. Beretta_. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.
> 
> Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say *plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.
Click to expand...


Indeed, a matter of crime control.  Deal effectively with crime, criminals and the insane.  That is the legal protection.  Leave the real people alone.



Valerie said:


> and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.



I have nothing against lawyers, save those practicing only in order to undermine Constitutional rights.


----------



## Valerie

forks, knives, baseball bats, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc, all have _other_ legal purposes.

there is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than massive deadly assault.

certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.

whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...


----------



## ChrisL

Yeah, so if you levy a heavy tax on guns or ammo, then criminals be like "oh noes."  Lol.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Timmy said:


> Oh shut up you sanctimonious gun freaks .  You are the same people who have no problem with the right wing going to great lengths to eliminate abortions by regulating it out of existence.



Look you sanctimonious, anti-gun fairy...


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
> If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?



Puerile.  Grow up.


----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


> forks, knives, baseball bats, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc, all have _other_ legal purposes.
> 
> there is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than deadly assault.
> 
> certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.
> 
> whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...









You don't even know what a so called "assault weapon" is...
And Ar15 is nothing more than just a sporting rifle. dumbass

Get your head out of your ass and educate yourself


----------



## TNHarley

Valerie said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
Click to expand...

 Says the cankles supporter


----------



## kwc57

Wilbur Right said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.
> 
> But let's say I own a gun shop. Right outside of Chicago. And my gun shop sells a LOT of guns. Straw buyers, gang bangers everybody knows where to get guns. And the gun manufacturers know of my reputation and they keep selling me guns.
> 
> Should that be stopped by suing the gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...


How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago?  Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant?  What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

They're getting sued for making a product that works???

Only in Liberalland


----------



## nat4900

Billy_Kinetta said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
> If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puerile.  Grow up.
Click to expand...



Actually, I HAVE grown up from the "need" to feel more like a man when I have guns around the house....

Why are you right wingers so set against Iran having a nuclear weapon.....especially if their "constitution" allows them to purchase one from whomever wants to sell them one?


----------



## ChrisL

You know, all of these measures are definitely going to deter criminals from getting guns because . . . criminals follow laws, and once you make a law, of course there is NO way around it.  Lol.


----------



## kwc57

SuperDemocrat said:


> These lawsuits are being allowed because anti-gun people know they can at least slow down the gun manufacturing industry.   They hope they can crush it.  The only thing they succeed at is scaring small manufacturers out of business which only leaves the bigger ones who can afford the lawsuits.



Really?  I believe if you check, you'll see that gun sales go up every time liberals starting frothing about control.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
> If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puerile.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I HAVE grown up from the "need" to feel more like a man when I have guns around the house....
> 
> Why are you right wingers so set against Iran having a nuclear weapon.....especially if their "constitution" allows them to purchase one from whomever wants to sell them one?
Click to expand...


----------



## Rustic




----------



## ChrisL

You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so.  Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Valerie said:


> There is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than massive deadly assault.



Please describe an "assault weapon", and how it differs in function from a "non-assault" weapon.



Valerie said:


> certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.



Already the case. See FFL requirements.



Valerie said:


> whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...



Most carry permits require minimum training, and most carriers have more training than your everyday beat cop.  Is that okay with you?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?




Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## kwc57

Valerie said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said *Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield. *
> 
> *"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,"* he said.
> 
> At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.
> 
> But *the issues at hand are more complex*, say some legal scholars.
> 
> "It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.
> 
> For an example of how this plays out, look at _Adames v. Beretta_. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.
> 
> Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say *plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.
> 
> and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.
Click to expand...


The public has legal protections.  Guns.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## nat4900

CrusaderFrank said:


> They're getting sued for making a product that works???
> 
> Only in Liberalland




So, you'd agree that North Korea could sue Pakistan for having bought a nuke that malfunctioned?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
Click to expand...


aware that their product is just as legal as your pants, car, coffee maker and tampon?  Look, I realize that scary boomsticks make you pee your panties, but you don't have to buy or use one if you don't want to.  Quit trying to control people's lives.  Oh wait, you're a liberal......


----------



## Rustic




----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> The public has legal protections. Guns.




Stupid, STUPID !!!!! For 2 reasons:

One, morons like you STILL think that government (especially with a black president) is after your sorry hide and you will fight them off from your bedroom.......and

Two, do you really think that your freakin assault rifle is preventing government from  placing you in that dreaded "relocation" camp?????

MORON !!!!!


----------



## NightFox

nat4900 said:


> Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?


When did anybody advocate selling nuclear weapons to the public ? Personally I don't even want governments to have them, especially the U.S. government which not only has the distinction of being the only one to ever use them in anger also has the honor of having spent a half a century chock full of fuckheads that actually thought a nuclear war was winnable. 

If you gub'mint worshipers actually cared about people being killed with guns you'd be looking to disarm the biggest purveyor of gun violence the world has ever seen, namely the  federal government who has managed to slaughter more innocents in the last century then all the criminals in the world combined, but then again you don't actually give a fuck about the victims all you care about is getting your own way using government as a billy club.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> *Quit trying to control people's lives*. Oh wait, you're a liberal......




You mean like outlawing abortion or preventing gay/lesbians from marrying ?????

LOL


----------



## ChrisL

What's weird is that there was a time in America (not THAT long ago) where we didn't have such "laws," and we didn't have mass shootings or other such things.  It seems as though the more laws the anti-rights crowd come up with, the more problems we have with gun violence.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So......liar....
> 
> gun suicides.....21,175
> Accidental gun deaths... 505
> Gun murder ......8,124
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you got your figures, I have mine.  But mine are right.
> 
> Anyway, too many gun deaths no matter what the figures are.   Too high a price to pay for your fetish.
> 
> Here's an idea.  We need a gun tax.  To compensate us for the 270 BILLION lost every year, I think a tax of $1000 per gun owned would be about right.
Click to expand...


Owning a weapon is not a "fetish."  It is a constitutionally guaranteed right.  Those taxes are really gonna hurt the criminals too.  Lol.  We all know that when they go to legally buy their weapons that they plan on committing crimes with, this will be a HUGE deterrent.   

Basically, you want to levy a tax on the law abiding weapon owner, so that the criminals can keep doing their thing without having to pay anything.  Goddamn, you are one stupid fuck.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
> If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puerile.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I HAVE grown up from the "need" to feel more like a man when I have guns around the house....
Click to expand...


Interesting.  I myself have never felt that way, and frankly I'm not interested in your gender-identity crisis.



nat4900 said:


> Why are you right wingers so set against Iran having a nuclear weapon.....especially if their "constitution" allows them to purchase one from whomever wants to sell them one?



Wings Over The World.

All things are not relative.  I don't give a rat's ass about *their* constitution.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public has legal protections. Guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, STUPID !!!!! For 2 reasons:
> 
> One, morons like you STILL think that government (especially with a black president) is after your sorry hide and you will fight them off from your bedroom.......and
> 
> Two, do you really think that your freakin assault rifle is preventing government from  placing you in that dreaded "relocation" camp?????
> 
> MORON !!!!!
Click to expand...

Do you even know what an so called "assault rifle" is?? Dumbass
The "AR" in ar15 does not mean Assault rifle... Of course if your head was out of your ass you would know that…


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you have your car hijacked, and the person runs it into a crowd of people, you are responsible?
> 
> You are dumber than dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you leave your car running and someone takes it you are culpable.  If you do not secure a firearm, and it too is taken you are culpable too.  If you are carjacked you are not culpable, if your guns are stored with a gun lock, or in a gun safe you are not culpable.  It's really so simple even dirt would comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, since you mention it, the car with the keys in it, didn't that happen? But yeah, agree with this 100%. I make my guns inert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do I.  My first line of defense is our dog, she will alert us in plenty of time to lock and load.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every time your dog barks you go to your gun safe, unlock it, get you gun, load it then go to see what Fido is barking at?
> 
> Not buying it
> 
> You most likely get up and say "Shut up, Fido" and then look out the door.
Click to expand...


They are liars.  Everyone knows this.  


JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> so adam would have got them from someone else....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy had no job, no money, and frankly, probably would have looked just seedy enough to make even most gun dealers look at him twice.
> 
> But I'd be all for suing whoever gave him a gun.
Click to expand...


You can't tell a person is crazy by looking at him.  Another stupid and nonsensical rant by Joe Blow.


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public has legal protections. Guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, STUPID !!!!! For 2 reasons:
> 
> One, morons like you STILL think that government (especially with a black president) is after your sorry hide and you will fight them off from your bedroom.......and
> 
> Two, do you really think that your freakin assault rifle is preventing government from  placing you in that dreaded "relocation" camp?????
> 
> MORON !!!!!
Click to expand...


Are you talking to the other voice in your head?  You let your estrogen get away from you and you start ranting about black presidents and relocation camps.  Where was the Nazi reference?  The conversation was the foolish idea of suing a manufacturer for the actions of someone else, not relocating black presidents to Nazi bedrooms.  When was the last time you saw the sunshine?  Actually talked to another person?  I urge you to reach out for help before you slip off into the dark abyss of insanity.  I care.


----------



## Confounding

nat4900 said:


> Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???



No, I'm suggesting that feel good gun control laws won't prevent maniacs from killing people. You want to punish innocent people for the crimes of others. There's also the fact that gun control won't prevent people from getting those guns for the same reason drug laws don't prevent people from getting drugs. All it will do is create a boon for the black market. Criminals will profit rather than legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes. Your solution doesn't fix the problem; it just makes other problems worse.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public has legal protections. Guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, STUPID !!!!! For 2 reasons:
> 
> One, morons like you STILL think that government (especially with a black president) is after your sorry hide and you will fight them off from your bedroom.......and
> 
> Two, do you really think that your freakin assault rifle is preventing government from  placing you in that dreaded "relocation" camp?????
Click to expand...


100,000,000+ angry gun owners v. 3,000,000 military personnel (who would not support such activity in any case) would certainly put a dent in it.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## miketx

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i




Lying sack of shit.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## auditor0007

TNHarley said:


> Being able to sue people who didn't do anything is setting a HUGE precedent.
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> You limp wristed statists are a DRAIN to our country.
> No.
> Fuckin.
> Shit.



Dependent upon the limitations of this, it might be a good thing, or it could be a very bad thing.  If this is a case where gun manufacturers and gun sellers become open to civil suits every time someone is killed by a gun, then we have a big problem.  On the other hand, if lawsuits are limited to cases where there was true negligence on the part of the seller or manufacturer, then this would make sense.  It seems to me that sellers are the ones who will need to show the most caution, as selling a gun to someone with a criminal record who is not permitted to buy or own a gun, or to someone who was just released from the loony bin, is where this will play out the most.


----------



## kaz

Luddly Neddite said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick fuck.  No, the primary use of guns is to not kill.  And not be killed.
> 
> Unless you're talking about hunting.  You a vegetarian?  Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you agree with what he wrote -
> 
> The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.
Click to expand...


No, stupid mother fucker, I said it's to not kill.  How stupid are you?


----------



## nat4900

Rustic said:


> Do you even know what an so called "assault rifle" is?? Dumbass
> The "AR" in ar15 does not mean Assault rifle... Of course if your head was out of your ass you would know that…



No doubt, you get an erection when you "correct" people that AR does not mean "assault rifle".....(yeah, yeah, ArmaLite was the original manufacturer)......


----------



## auditor0007

Rustic said:


>



One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.  We see this happen frequently, and I'm not sure what the answer to preventing this is.


----------



## Crixus

Laws are just words anyway,  and don't excuse us of any responsibility. In this picture you can see MY AR. One of them anyway. It takes 20 seconds to pull that pin. So a hood rat, vatoloco, or trailer trash may steal my shit, they will be bummed when they drop the hammer and it only go's "click".  Simply locking them in the closet won't do. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/URL

[/IMG]


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.  We see this happen frequently, and I'm not sure what the answer to preventing this is.
Click to expand...


Frequently?  You are full of shit


----------



## couch protester

auditor0007 said:


> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.


That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to sue people who didn't do anything is setting a HUGE precedent.
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> You limp wristed statists are a DRAIN to our country.
> No.
> Fuckin.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent upon the limitations of this, it might be a good thing, or it could be a very bad thing.  If this is a case where gun manufacturers and gun sellers become open to civil suits every time someone is killed by a gun, then we have a big problem.  On the other hand, if lawsuits are limited to cases where there was true negligence on the part of the seller or manufacturer, then this would make sense.  It seems to me that sellers are the ones who will need to show the most caution, as selling a gun to someone with a criminal record who is not permitted to buy or own a gun, or to someone who was just released from the loony bin, is where this will play out the most.
Click to expand...


What "negligence" are you referring to?


----------



## auditor0007

kaz said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to sue people who didn't do anything is setting a HUGE precedent.
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> You limp wristed statists are a DRAIN to our country.
> No.
> Fuckin.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent upon the limitations of this, it might be a good thing, or it could be a very bad thing.  If this is a case where gun manufacturers and gun sellers become open to civil suits every time someone is killed by a gun, then we have a big problem.  On the other hand, if lawsuits are limited to cases where there was true negligence on the part of the seller or manufacturer, then this would make sense.  It seems to me that sellers are the ones who will need to show the most caution, as selling a gun to someone with a criminal record who is not permitted to buy or own a gun, or to someone who was just released from the loony bin, is where this will play out the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "negligence" are you referring to?
Click to expand...


It's pretty difficult to see how you would get negligence on the part of the manufacturer, but it is very easy to see how you could have negligence on the part of a seller.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Valerie said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
Click to expand...



And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.

It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> so adam would have got them from someone else....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy had no job, no money, and frankly, probably would have looked just seedy enough to make even most gun dealers look at him twice.
> 
> But I'd be all for suing whoever gave him a gun.
Click to expand...

gun dealer?....the dealer im talking about sells out of the trunk of his car....


----------



## auditor0007

couch protester said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
Click to expand...


I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.


----------



## kaz

Luddly Neddite said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
Click to expand...


There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?

You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.
Click to expand...


Someone who murders his own family was never "good people."

And your thought that not  having a gun means they give up and don't kill their family is based on what exactly?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Luddly Neddite said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
Click to expand...


The Left side of this argument:


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

auditor0007 said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.
Click to expand...


Nothing.  It has nothing to do with any guns I may own.

And no, it does not happen frequently.


----------



## auditor0007

kaz said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who murders his own family was never "good people."
> 
> And your thought that not  having a gun means they give up and don't kill their family is based on what exactly?
Click to expand...


It means it's not as easy for them to do it.  Here is a simple fact that gun lovers refuse to admit.  Countries that do not allow guns have much much lower homicide rates than we do in the US.  That is just a fact that cannot be ignored.  More guns equate to more deaths.


----------



## BluesLegend

Blacks should be allowed to sue the Democratic party, now that would be justified.


----------



## auditor0007

kaz said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?
> 
> You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...
Click to expand...


Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.  Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who murders his own family was never "good people."
> 
> And your thought that not  having a gun means they give up and don't kill their family is based on what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means it's not as easy for them to do it.  Here is a simple fact that gun lovers refuse to admit.  Countries that do not allow guns have much much lower homicide rates than we do in the US.  That is just a fact that cannot be ignored.  More guns equate to more deaths.
Click to expand...


There are so many factors to that.  To just say guns and run away is ridiculous.  For example, homogeneous societies have fewer conflicts.  You want to get rid of everyone who'd different?  As more and more foreigners integrate into Europe, their crime rates are going up even though they have strict gun restrictions.

And now you're going to get rid of the 310 million guns that are already here?  How you gonna do that?  And how are you going to stop trafficers from bringing in guns just like they import mass amounts of drugs?

You haven't thought any of this through


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?
> 
> You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.  Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.
Click to expand...


So you want to be a police State?  How'd that work out for France and Belgium?


----------



## nat4900

Confounding said:


> No, I'm suggesting that feel good gun control laws won't prevent maniacs from killing people. You want to punish innocent people for the crimes of others. There's also the fact that gun control won't prevent people from getting those guns for the same reason drug laws don't prevent people from getting drugs. All it will do is create a boon for the black market. Criminals will profit rather than legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes. Your solution doesn't fix the problem; it just makes other problems worse.




Your example actually works AGAINST you......Following your logic, marijuana and opiates SHOULD BE legalized so that there won't be a black market on such drugs.....

Gun manufacturers sought and got (paid for) laws to prevent them being sued.....there must have been a "reason" for such preventive insurance, don't you think?


----------



## Two Thumbs

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.


The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see.

Anyone with a double digit IQ or the ability to think for themselves knows what this is about.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.




Let us join the sane and laugh when this ruling is thrown out.


----------



## nat4900

Rustic said:


>




Cute.....want to compare FREE HEALTH CARE by Switzerland versus us???


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm suggesting that feel good gun control laws won't prevent maniacs from killing people. You want to punish innocent people for the crimes of others. There's also the fact that gun control won't prevent people from getting those guns for the same reason drug laws don't prevent people from getting drugs. All it will do is create a boon for the black market. Criminals will profit rather than legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes. Your solution doesn't fix the problem; it just makes other problems worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your example actually works AGAINST you......Following your logic, marijuana and opiates SHOULD BE legalized so that there won't be a black market on such drugs.....
Click to expand...


Good idea.



nat4900 said:


> Gun manufacturers sought and got (paid for) laws to prevent them being sued.....there must have been a "reason" for such preventive insurance, don't you think?



To protect them from the ambulance chasers and other lunatics. (Hint there.)


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm suggesting that feel good gun control laws won't prevent maniacs from killing people. You want to punish innocent people for the crimes of others. There's also the fact that gun control won't prevent people from getting those guns for the same reason drug laws don't prevent people from getting drugs. All it will do is create a boon for the black market. Criminals will profit rather than legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes. Your solution doesn't fix the problem; it just makes other problems worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your example actually works AGAINST you......Following your logic, marijuana and opiates SHOULD BE legalized so that there won't be a black market on such drugs.....
> 
> Gun manufacturers sought and got (paid for) laws to prevent them being sued.....there must have been a "reason" for such preventive insurance, don't you think?
Click to expand...


Guns, marijuana and opiates should all be legal.  Clearly drugs fund organized crime, it's amazing we still haven't learned from alcohol being illegal.

You just want to do it again.  Drug dealers would be glad to sell guns.  People who plan to commit murder obviously don't care about the risk of getting caught buying an illegal gun.  

All your gun laws do is kill innocent people.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.....want to compare FREE HEALTH CARE by Switzerland versus us???
Click to expand...


Because ...

You like comparing us to other countries.  Except when you don't ...


----------



## hadit

skookerasbil said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not to that dope.........thinks they walk around by day and night on seek and destroy missions!! These types just will never be able to connect the dots.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if they believe there are packs of feral guns that escaped their owners, are roaming the wilds, and are just lying in wait to attack.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wilbur Right said:


> [
> 
> 
> Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.



Nor is it the purpose that school and shooting be done together.

You of the anti-liberty left are out of control.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.



You are quite insane, and fully evil.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> so adam would have got them from someone else....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy had no job, no money, and frankly, probably would have looked just seedy enough to make even most gun dealers look at him twice.
> 
> But I'd be all for suing whoever gave him a gun.
Click to expand...


So you wouldn't sue the person he killed so he could take a gun.


----------



## Trump.Stamped

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i



Do you believe police officers should have guns, or be unarmed?

(I know this may seem unrelated, but it isn't)


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wilbur Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is it the purpose that school and shooting be done together.
> 
> You of the anti-liberty left are out of control.
Click to expand...


Thank God Tim McVeigh didn't have a gun, it could have been a real tragedy ...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

auditor0007 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.  We see this happen frequently, and I'm not sure what the answer to preventing this is.
Click to expand...



And a large number of families are killed by an abusive husband/father and/or PTSD soldier.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Two Thumbs said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see.
> 
> Anyone with a double digit IQ or the ability to think for themselves knows what this is about.
Click to expand...

_
"The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see."_

Not true at all. 

The only people who talk about banning are the gun nutters. 

They are instructed to do that as a smoke screen to hide the real issues - which are being discussed in this thread.


----------



## kaz

Luddly Neddite said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.  We see this happen frequently, and I'm not sure what the answer to preventing this is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And a large number of families are killed by an abusive husband/father and/or PTSD soldier.
Click to expand...


But no gun, everyone's fine!


----------



## kaz

Luddly Neddite said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see.
> 
> Anyone with a double digit IQ or the ability to think for themselves knows what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> "The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see."_
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> The only people who talk about banning are the gun nutters.
> 
> They are instructed to do that as a smoke screen to hide the real issues - which are being discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...


A lot of leftists actually do propose banning guns, read the threads.

But as for the rest of you, when guns are at home in safes because they aren't allowed to be carried, what good does that do you?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite insane, and fully evil.
Click to expand...



Wanting to save children's lives is "insane" and "evil"?

What is insane and evil is is lining the pockets of Repub congress, NRA lobbyists and gun makers at the expense of innocent children.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
Click to expand...


You mean the same way you get when you talk about a liberal Supreme Court taking our guns away????


----------



## Crixus

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible?  Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her guns were locked in a safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....her kid was planning the attack for 2 years.....most of these killers plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, so even if his mother didn't have any guns in the home he would have gotten weapons...just like the 19 year old kid in Britain who ordered a Glock 19 over the Dark Web....in a country that is an island, confiscated guns and has extreme gun control laws.....any other gun would have killed as many people at Sandy Hook...it was a gun free zone...no one was armed to stop him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't you know that if guns are illegal, there will be no more murders.    Lol.
Click to expand...


Check out the Cologne school massacre. That was pretty grizzly. That guy used a home made speer, a club and a home made flame thrower.


----------



## Confounding

nat4900 said:


> Following your logic, marijuana and opiates SHOULD BE legalized so that there won't be a black market on such drugs.....



Yes, exactly. People will do drugs and buy guns regardless of what the law says. It's better if legitimate businesses are profiting from it.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what an so called "assault rifle" is?? Dumbass
> The "AR" in ar15 does not mean Assault rifle... Of course if your head was out of your ass you would know that…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you get an erection when you "correct" people that AR does not mean "assault rifle".....(yeah, yeah, ArmaLite was the original manufacturer)......
Click to expand...

Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.



No. This would be like being able to sue the babysitter because your kid tripped and got a skint' knee in the back yard.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun



A maniac with a gun, not a gun with a maniac. Get it?


----------



## Rustic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
Click to expand...

Have you always believed in fairytails?? Lol


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm suggesting that feel good gun control laws won't prevent maniacs from killing people. You want to punish innocent people for the crimes of others. There's also the fact that gun control won't prevent people from getting those guns for the same reason drug laws don't prevent people from getting drugs. All it will do is create a boon for the black market. Criminals will profit rather than legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes. Your solution doesn't fix the problem; it just makes other problems worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your example actually works AGAINST you......Following your logic, marijuana and opiates SHOULD BE legalized so that there won't be a black market on such drugs.....
> 
> Gun manufacturers sought and got (paid for) laws to prevent them being sued.....there must have been a "reason" for such preventive insurance, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Gun violence is an nonissue in this country... Now criminal behavior, that's a problem. Dumbass


----------



## TemplarKormac

auditor0007 said:


> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.



That's a lie. Give us one such society, and I'll educate you on how a black market works, because you can't regulate them with gun laws. People will still get guns regardless.

You can keep repeating that tired talking point, but doing so doesn't make it so.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.....want to compare FREE HEALTH CARE by Switzerland versus us???
Click to expand...

Health care is not a right, firearm ownership is a right... Dumbass


----------



## TemplarKormac

auditor0007 said:


> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.



HOLY SHIT. Seriously? Is that all you can come up with?


----------



## TemplarKormac

auditor0007 said:


> If this is a case where gun manufacturers and gun sellers become open to civil suits every time someone is killed by a gun, then we have a big problem. On the other hand, if lawsuits are limited to cases where there was true negligence on the part of the seller or manufacturer, then this would make sense.



That's flawed reasoning. Because from where I'm sitting, any murder, any mass killing is a reason for a gun manufacturer to be sued. They make the guns, the have no control over who sells their products.


----------



## Rustic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see.
> 
> Anyone with a double digit IQ or the ability to think for themselves knows what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> "The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see."_
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> The only people who talk about banning are the gun nutters.
> 
> They are instructed to do that as a smoke screen to hide the real issues - which are being discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...

Any form of "gun registration" is the banning of firearms. Anyone talking about "reasonable" gun regulation deserve to have their teeth knocked down their throats... They can never be trusted.


----------



## Rustic

kaz said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.....want to compare FREE HEALTH CARE by Switzerland versus us???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because ...
> 
> You like comparing us to other countries.  Except when you don't ...
Click to expand...

...just like all progressives. Hypocrites


----------



## Rustic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite insane, and fully evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting to save children's lives is "insane" and "evil"?
> 
> What is insane and evil is is lining the pockets of Repub congress, NRA lobbyists and gun makers at the expense of innocent children.
Click to expand...

naïve progressive


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Centinel

nat4900 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
Click to expand...

Common citizens? Is there some other form of citizen than the commoners?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> All your gun laws do is kill innocent people.




Sure......the Brady Bill "killed" thousands of innocent people.......right???


----------



## nat4900

Rustic said:


>




*Rusty,* try to get a job writing those cute little sayings in Chinese fortune cookies.....


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A maniac with a gun, not a gun with a maniac. Get it?
Click to expand...



The above will prove of real "comfort" to those Sandy Hook families....
Why not deliver your cute message personally and see how well you'd be received?


----------



## nat4900

Rustic said:


> Have you always believed in *fairytails?*? Lol




"FAIRYTAILS" ??????

(any more proof needed that this idiot actually flaunts his stupidity?)


----------



## Centinel

What would the plaintiff's case be? How are firearms manufacturers in any way responsible for Sandy Hook?


----------



## nat4900

Rustic said:


> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol



Sure, the AR15 is a "sporting rifle" if you want to either have instant deer ground meat, OR kill as many people as possible just for "sport"......


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> A lot of leftists actually do propose banning guns, read the threads.
> 
> But as for the rest of you, when guns are at home in safes because they aren't allowed to be carried, what good does that do you?




NO, dumbass....no one except your ilk is saying to "ban guns".....We are talking here about assault weapons that are manufactured ONLY to kill in short time as many people as possible,

You right wingers are either idiots or are lying to yourselves.


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> They make the guns, the *have no control over who sells their products*.




Hey, with that "rationale" you could get a job defending Colombian and Mexican drug cartels.....


----------



## Centinel

nat4900 said:


> NO, dumbass....no one except your ilk is saying to "ban guns".....We are talking here about assault weapons that are manufactured ONLY to kill in short time as many people as possible,
> 
> You right wingers are either idiots or are lying to yourselves.



And how/why are the manufacturers of these weapons civilly liable for the actions of those who misuse them?


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A maniac with a gun, not a gun with a maniac. Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The above will prove of real "comfort" to those Sandy Hook families....
> Why not deliver your cute message personally and see how well you'd be received?
Click to expand...


You know, it's quite sad that you're using those families and their dead children as tools to further your argument. 

I doubt you truly care about them.


----------



## nat4900

Centinel said:


> What would the plaintiff's case be? How are firearms manufacturers in any way responsible for Sandy Hook?




Simple......Such weapons of mass murder should NOT be manufactured......Aren't you within the same ilk that gets all pissy about N. Korea wanting to sell nuclear know-how to Iranians.


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> You know, it's quite sad that you're using those families and their dead children as tools to further your argument.
> 
> I doubt you truly care about them.




You can"doubt" all you want, but I both know one of those poor families and I've had friends killed needlessly by asasalt weapons.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> They make the guns, the *have no control over who sells their products*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, with that "rationale" you could get a job defending Colombian and Mexican drug cartels.....
Click to expand...


Funny.

Read up on Fast and Furious. All those guns run across the border, being used by those drug cartels to murder hundreds and/or thousands of innocents, and not one word from liberals like you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's quite sad that you're using those families and their dead children as tools to further your argument.
> 
> I doubt you truly care about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can"doubt" all you want, but I both know one of those poor families and I've had friends killed needlessly by asasalt weapons.
Click to expand...

Save me the crocodile tears.


----------



## Centinel

nat4900 said:


> Simple......Such weapons of mass murder should NOT be manufactured......



But how/why would firearms manufacturers be responsible for Sandy Hook?



> Aren't you within the same ilk that gets all pissy about N. Korea wanting to sell nuclear know-how to Iranians.



Not that I'm aware of, no, you presumptuous douche.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> You can"doubt" all you want, but I both know one of those poor families and I've had friends killed needlessly by asasalt weapons.



You're lying.

In the off chance that you aren't, I'm sure they don't appreciate you using their tragedy to bash someone over the head with in an obscure internet forum. I will also reiterate that I seriously doubt you know any of the families whose children were killed in the shootings.


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> Read up on Fast and Furious. All those guns used by those drug cartels to murder hundreds and/or thousands of innocents and not one word from liberals like you.




Cite where any of us are "defending" the federal government with the "fast and furious" debacle....and, BTW, the same gun manufacturers that you seem to love, made lots of profit with that little program.


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> In the off chance that you aren't, I'm sure they don't appreciate you using their tragedy to bash someone over the head with in an obscure internet forum. I will also reiterate that I seriously doubt you know any of the families whose children were killed in the shootings.




I really don't give a crap what you believe....I really don't care.....but any sane person would have to judge for him/herself  WHICH SIDE of the argument ........mine or yours and your ilk .....are more in line with what those families believe to be justice......


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> Cite where any of us are "defending" the federal government with the "fast and furious" debacle



Silence can be construed as defense. And I never said you were defending anything, I'm simply pointing out that while you're crying crocodile tears over the corpses of those children, demanding the gun manufacturers be sued and/or put out of business, you've ignored the shenanigans that went on during Fast and Furious. All those guns that were run across the border, responsible for scores of deaths, and not a word from you.


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> Silence can be construed as defense. And I never said you were defending anything, I'm simply pointing out that while you're crying crocodile tears over the corpses of those children, demanding the gun manufacturers be sued and/or put out of business, you've ignored the shenanigans that went on during Fast and Furious. All those guns that were run across the border, responsible for scores of deaths, and not a word from yo




You your other half of the brain was functioning, you'd realize that "fast and Furious" was lobbyed by the same gun manufacturers that you're defending.


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> So you are for the only thing standing between us and a room full of dead pre-schoolers is the judgement of a woman like Nancy Lanza, a prepper nut who was stocking weapons and food like the Zombie Apocalypse was coming?
> 
> I think I want better assurances than that.
> 
> Make the gun companies pay a shitload of money, and we will get those assurances.



better idea-put the assholes who filed the lawsuit into the poor house and bankrupt the ass wart attorneys who filed that crap.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> I really don't give a crap what you believe....I really don't care.....but any sane person would have to judge for him/herself  WHICH SIDE of the argument ........mine or yours and your ilk .....are more in line with what those families believe to be justice......



No.

Gun Liability Poll Results

And no.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> You have been exposed as a liar. How dare you lie about something like that?




The ONLy thing exposed here is your biased stupidity....and like a cat who gets tired of playing with a dead mouse, I've got better things to do then read your imbecility.

Go play with your guns......


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> No, criminals will still be able to get guns, silly boy.




Joe the Banoid moron knows that but he cannot come out and say his real goal is to prevent people who don't vote for left wing fairies from having guns


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silence can be construed as defense. And I never said you were defending anything, I'm simply pointing out that while you're crying crocodile tears over the corpses of those children, demanding the gun manufacturers be sued and/or put out of business, you've ignored the shenanigans that went on during Fast and Furious. All those guns that were run across the border, responsible for scores of deaths, and not a word from yo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You your other half of the brain was functioning, you'd realize that "fast and Furious" was lobbyed by the same gun manufacturers that you're defending.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Link me to any such lobby.


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Wanna hear something funny?  Joey claims he owns guns, yet he wants no one else to have them.  Lol.



lots of power hungry douche bags have stuff they don't wan to share


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> The ONLy thing exposed here is your biased stupidity....and like a cat who gets tired of playing with a dead mouse, I've got better things to do then read your imbecility.
> 
> Go play with your guns......



You lose. Now go play in your safe space, you disreputable cur.


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.




So you're all for federal law being supreme, except when you're not. Freaking hypocrite.


----------



## turtledude

Valerie said:


> *Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires*
> _September 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM EDT_
> 
> JIM LEHRER: Now, the assault weapons ban. The ten-year-old law expires at midnight tonight. It outlaws 19 types of military- style semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as ammunition clips holding more than ten rounds.
> 
> Republican congressional leaders declined to bring reauthorizing legislation to the floor for debate or vote, saying there were not enough votes to pass it.
> 
> We get reaction to the end of the ban now from two very different perspectives. Gil Kerlikowske is chief of the Seattle Police Department. Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association. Chief Kerlikowske, first, what is your reading of what the impact of the failure to extend this ban is going to be?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, I think it sends a terrible signal to America’s law enforcement officers. This was a ban that ten years ago was put into place because of chiefs and sheriffs and the legitimate organizations that represent line officers and deputies.
> 
> I think it also sends a terrible message to America’s communities. The last thing we need are more military-style assault weapons on the streets of this country.
> 
> JIM LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind, Chief, that the lifting of the ban will in fact cause that to happen? There will be more of these weapons going on the streets?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: There’s no question that there will be more weapons on the streets. Right now, the companies are taking orders in advance of the sunset provision.
> 
> We know that people will buy them and that unfortunately they will get stolen from their homes and out of their cars. And they are going to proliferate on our streets.
> 
> JIM LEHRER: And the end result of that proliferation would be what in your opinion?
> 
> GIL KERLIKOWSKE: A couple of things: One is that our law enforcement officers, my officers in Seattle, the others around this country, face enough danger right now.
> 
> They do not need to face the additional danger of additional weapons. We also know that when the family gun becomes an assault weapon, then that’s the gun that’s going to be stolen and will get out on our streets.
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires



guess what-the Banoid assholes claimed that crime would go up as a result of the ban dying

THEY WERE WRONG.  They are lying assholes .  Gil Douchebag has no business holding office since he is crapping over the constitution he took an oath to protect


----------



## turtledude

Valerie said:


> feel free to follow the link i provided, to see the rest of the piece...  you're welcome.



He's a democrat who sucks the cocks of Democrat politicians.  He's a worm and a liar


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> So you are for the only thing standing between us and a room full of dead pre-schoolers is the judgement of a woman like Nancy Lanza, a prepper nut who was stocking weapons and food like the Zombie Apocalypse was coming?
> 
> I think I want better assurances than that.
> 
> Make the gun companies pay a shitload of money, and we will get those assurances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> better idea-put the assholes who filed the lawsuit into the poor house and bankrupt the ass wart attorneys who filed that crap.
Click to expand...


That's why we need a law that loser pays when it comes to lawsuits.


----------



## turtledude

Valerie said:


> *August 9, 2004*-*States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a  list  of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support “renewing and strengthening” the federal Assault Weapons Ban.*  Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland  Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York  Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.
> 
> *June 2004*-A  study  commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, “Attacks with semiautomatics-including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines-result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” The study also reports, “Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful.”
> 
> *April 27, 2004*-Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, “There is a reason that these [assault] weapons  are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement.”
> 
> *May 2003*-The Violence Policy Center releases the “Officer Down” report, which finds that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.
> 
> *1994*-In an analysis of assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) writes, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guys in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”   The ATF describes assault weapons as “large capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use … Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces.”
> 
> http://csgv.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mass-produced-mayhem-231x300.jpg





any firearm cops can use OTHER civilians ought to be able to own

how many of those are democrats?


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> Go play with your guns......



And you can go play with a pair of scissors.


----------



## turtledude

Valerie said:


> _We're talking about weapons that are made for war," said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. "An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47... these high-capacity [guns]... you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel."_
> 
> _Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons_



Hey asshole-we aren't talking about MACHINE GUNS-we are talking about the same weapons CIVILIAN COPS CARRY

if those are WEAPONS OF WAR WHY THE FUCK ARE CIVILIAN COPS USING THEM

stupid moron


----------



## OKTexas

Wilbur Right said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.
> 
> But let's say I own a gun shop. Right outside of Chicago. And my gun shop sells a LOT of guns. Straw buyers, gang bangers everybody knows where to get guns. And the gun manufacturers know of my reputation and they keep selling me guns.
> 
> Should that be stopped by suing the gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...



If you can prove such a situation exist, it's the feds job to pull their dealers license. Should we sue them for not doing so?


----------



## turtledude

Valerie said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to follow the link i provided, to see the rest of the piece...  you're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should tell that to all those law enforcement and weapons professionals cited in those links you ignore.
> 
> 
> i'm certainly not going to do your homework for you.
Click to expand...


LOL I am a retired LE professional who is far more knowledgeable than those clowns you quote

and its BS complete bs.  Less than  8% of the street cops Janet Reno polled supported the clinton gun ban


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion and your entitled to it. Opinion is not a winning argument.


----------



## turtledude

g5000 said:


> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43



try white homicide rates in the USA v Britain

not any real difference


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He could have walked into that classroom and killed those children with a chef's knife. You're the one missing the point. The people that make weapons are not responsible for the crimes committed by maniacs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ????? REALLY????
> 
> Are you suggesting that an automatic weapon is JUST AS lethal as a chef's knife???
Click to expand...



Either can make you just as dead.


----------



## OKTexas

Luddly Neddite said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those little babies were literally torn in two and unrecognizable as human children.
> 
> Why do civilians need that gun and those magazines?
Click to expand...



Riots.


----------



## FA_Q2

nat4900 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would the plaintiff's case be? How are firearms manufacturers in any way responsible for Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple......Such weapons of mass murder should NOT be manufactured......Aren't you within the same ilk that gets all pissy about N. Korea wanting to sell nuclear know-how to Iranians.
Click to expand...

So, IOW, because you are unable to take the second amendment away you are applauding the effort to do so by other means.

Interesting how much disdain some here have for the constitution and the proper means to address its errors.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crixus said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
Click to expand...


Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.


----------



## mudwhistle

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.


They should be able to sue gasoline companies for refining gas that causes auto accidents.
They should be able to sue cell phone manufacturers that caused so many traffic fatalities it's like driving drunk.

BTW, a gun can't kill. Bullets do. Sue the ammo producers instead of the gun manufacturers.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A maniac with a gun, not a gun with a maniac. Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The above will prove of real "comfort" to those Sandy Hook families....
> Why not deliver your cute message personally and see how well you'd be received?
Click to expand...


Was he involved in the incident?  I bet not.


----------



## Crixus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
Click to expand...


Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.


----------



## OKTexas

Valerie said:


> forks, knives, baseball bats, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc, all have _other_ legal purposes.
> 
> there is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than massive deadly assault.
> 
> certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.
> 
> whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...



Would 20+ years in the military meet your high standards of training?


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the AR15 is a "sporting rifle" if you want to either have instant deer ground meat, OR kill as many people as possible just for "sport"......
Click to expand...

It's not military grade, That's for sure. 
What is the difference between an ar15 sporting rifle and a military grade m16/m4??
Be specific... Hint: The difference is like night and day... Dumbass


----------



## Centinel

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the AR15 is a "sporting rifle" if you want to either have instant deer ground meat, OR kill as many people as possible just for "sport"......
Click to expand...

btw, .223 is not really considered sufficiently powerful to harvest deer. I haven't heard anyone using anything less than .270, at least on the east coast, where the whitetails are typically larger than out west.


----------



## TemplarKormac

mudwhistle said:


> BTW, a gun can't kill. Bullets do.



As is the case where guns can't kill on their own, bullets can't kill on their own either. Unless some poor guy thinks it would be funny to swallow one and winds up choking to death on it.

So without the the murderer, the _gun_ is harmless; without the gun, the _murderer_ is harmless. Without the bullets, the _gun_ is harmless; without the gun, the _bullets_ are harmless. Thus demonstrates the fatal flaw in liberal gun control arguments.

Confusing perhaps, but it demonstrates that one break in that chain, either the murderer, the gun, or the bullets, will mean nobody is in danger of being sued, or shot dead.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the AR15 is a "sporting rifle" if you want to either have instant deer ground meat, OR kill as many people as possible just for "sport"......
Click to expand...

Ha! Ground meat? You do know most ARs use a .22 caliber round?? Get your head out of your ass... Lol


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
Click to expand...



You don't have a clue what an assault weapon is, so STFU.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would the plaintiff's case be? How are firearms manufacturers in any way responsible for Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple......Such weapons of mass murder should NOT be manufactured......Aren't you within the same ilk that gets all pissy about N. Korea wanting to sell nuclear know-how to Iranians.
Click to expand...

Please remove your head from your ass... Lol


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's quite sad that you're using those families and their dead children as tools to further your argument.
> 
> I doubt you truly care about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can"doubt" all you want, but I both know one of those poor families and I've had friends killed needlessly by asasalt weapons.
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't know what an so called "asasalt" weapon is... Lol
Dumbfuck


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read up on Fast and Furious. All those guns used by those drug cartels to murder hundreds and/or thousands of innocents and not one word from liberals like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite where any of us are "defending" the federal government with the "fast and furious" debacle....and, BTW, the same gun manufacturers that you seem to love, made lots of profit with that little program.
Click to expand...

Again... Please remove your head from your ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crixus said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
Click to expand...


Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been exposed as a liar. How dare you lie about something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLy thing exposed here is your biased stupidity....and like a cat who gets tired of playing with a dead mouse, I've got better things to do then read your imbecility.
> 
> Go play with your guns......
Click to expand...


----------



## Rustic




----------



## OKTexas

auditor0007 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.  We see this happen frequently, and I'm not sure what the answer to preventing this is.
Click to expand...



How about we just make it illegal...........................oh wait!


----------



## Crixus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
Click to expand...


Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.


----------



## turtledude

Crixus said:


> [
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.



I doubt it.  she had no warning he was going to commit capital murder.  He had not been adjudicated mentally incompetent nor did he have a criminal record nor was he a fugitive or under indictment


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## OKTexas

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to sue people who didn't do anything is setting a HUGE precedent.
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> You limp wristed statists are a DRAIN to our country.
> No.
> Fuckin.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent upon the limitations of this, it might be a good thing, or it could be a very bad thing.  If this is a case where gun manufacturers and gun sellers become open to civil suits every time someone is killed by a gun, then we have a big problem.  On the other hand, if lawsuits are limited to cases where there was true negligence on the part of the seller or manufacturer, then this would make sense.  It seems to me that sellers are the ones who will need to show the most caution, as selling a gun to someone with a criminal record who is not permitted to buy or own a gun, or to someone who was just released from the loony bin, is where this will play out the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "negligence" are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty difficult to see how you would get negligence on the part of the manufacturer, but it is very easy to see how you could have negligence on the part of a seller.
Click to expand...



Not if they follow the law. If they don't then it's up to the ATF to revoke their license.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## OKTexas

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?
> 
> You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.  Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.
Click to expand...



Tell that to the folks in Paris.


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.....want to compare FREE HEALTH CARE by Switzerland versus us???
Click to expand...



Deflection. Typical regressive.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Crixus

turtledude said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.  she had no warning he was going to commit capital murder.  He had not been adjudicated mentally incompetent nor did he have a criminal record nor was he a fugitive or under indictment
Click to expand...


Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.


----------



## OKTexas

Luddly Neddite said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see.
> 
> Anyone with a double digit IQ or the ability to think for themselves knows what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> "The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see."_
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> The only people who talk about banning are the gun nutters.
> 
> They are instructed to do that as a smoke screen to hide the real issues - which are being discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...



You're freaking crazy, you can't sue the manufacturer of a legal product that works as designed. That's the issue here.


----------



## Crixus

I do have to say, nowhere does anything say where he got the .22 he shot his mom with, but I have not found anything that says Mrs. Lanza went to any major effort to secure them beyond putting them in a case.


----------



## turtledude

Crixus said:


> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.



what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around

hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away

YOU protect your weapons when you are present

fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your gun laws do is kill innocent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure......the Brady Bill "killed" thousands of innocent people.......right???
Click to expand...


The Brady bill had no real impact one way or the other, even the CDC says gun laws don't reduce crime.


----------



## Crixus

turtledude said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
Click to expand...


Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?


----------



## Rustic

OKTexas said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your gun laws do is kill innocent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure......the Brady Bill "killed" thousands of innocent people.......right???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Brady bill had no real impact one way or the other, even the CDC says gun laws don't reduce crime.
Click to expand...

More guns less crime...


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would the plaintiff's case be? How are firearms manufacturers in any way responsible for Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple......Such weapons of mass murder should NOT be manufactured......Aren't you within the same ilk that gets all pissy about N. Korea wanting to sell nuclear know-how to Iranians.
Click to expand...



More deflection, goooooooood job!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crixus said:


> I do have to say, nowhere does anything say where he got the .22 he shot his mom with, but I have not found anything that says Mrs. Lanza went to any major effort to secure them beyond putting them in a case.



I did the same research when you posed the question, but like you, couldn't find that information. 

What I did find in the process is that Adam did go to a licensed dealer to purchase a long gun since he was a year too young to purchase a handgun.  They didn't refuse him, but they did tell him it would take 14 days before his application for the purchase was approved. 

It might very well be the case that he was legally allowed to purchase guns.


----------



## skindogone

Thank God there's no victims

- Skindog on a LG-H901 and SM-P600

Indifference is a choice!


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

nat4900 said:


> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.



Just like a knife and rope a gun can not kill someone on it own. Guns are also used for hunting ( like the ones I own ) and their purpose is not to kill another human.

To put the gun manufacture at fault for the heinous crime of a sick individual is wrong.


----------



## Crixus

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have to say, nowhere does anything say where he got the .22 he shot his mom with, but I have not found anything that says Mrs. Lanza went to any major effort to secure them beyond putting them in a case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did the same research when you posed the question, but like you, couldn't find that information.
> 
> What I did find in the process is that Adam did go to a licensed dealer to purchase a long gun since he was a year too young to purchase a handgun.  They didn't refuse him, but they did tell him it would take 14 days before his application for the purchase was approved.
> 
> It might very well be the case that he was legally allowed to purchase guns.
Click to expand...


Yup, that would make me wrong to.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## turtledude

Crixus said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
Click to expand...

 don't know but I know something having been a federal prosecutor for 24 years

some one willing to commit multiple death penalty eligible crimes and die doing it was not going to be stopped by a gun law


----------



## Rustic




----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Crixus

Or not being able to get a gun for that matter. One thing I read said Lanza was intrested in mass shootings an such. No guns ? Maybe he makes a bomb. Who knows.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Just_Me

Valerie said:


> forks, knives, baseball bats, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc, all have _other_ legal purposes.
> 
> there is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than massive deadly assault.
> 
> certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.
> 
> whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...


Point of information..An AR15 is not a military assault rifle. It's simply a hunting rifle on a military style stock.
An AR15 has many uses just like the items in your list do. Hunting, target shooting, home defense, keeping bears out of your cabin, competitions, and many more.

BTW, if they sent you into combat with an AR15 you would be quick to define the differences.


----------



## blackhawk

If someone is speding and loses control of their car crashes and kills someone is the automobile industry liable for making the car to fast?
If your drinking in your house and you fall and hurt or even kill yourself are the alcohol distributors liable for making a product that impairs judgement?
When you start down this road of trying to hold a business responsible for how those buy there products use them where does it end?


----------



## turtledude

kids I grew up with who went to cushy wealthy private schools and who spent most of their time at a country club were able to score cocaine and weapons if they wanted them


----------



## FA_Q2

Rustic said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the AR15 is a "sporting rifle" if you want to either have instant deer ground meat, OR kill as many people as possible just for "sport"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha! Ground meat? You do know most ARs use a .22 caliber round?? Get your head out of your ass... Lol
Click to expand...

Meh.  It is just proof that most people that argue against guns have no idea what they are talking about.  The mere mention of a 'military' style weapon just blows their mind.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Just_Me

Luddly Neddite said:


> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.


Its not about profits. That's just a talking point. It's not about the chiildren either. That's just a crutch to inflame the issue. The problem is not the guns. That's just a scape goat to avoid addressing the social problems that are a political hot potato for the left. I'm from the Chicago area where we have the tightest gun laws in the nation and I can tell you as FACT that guns do NOT kill people. These fools are killing each other with what ever they can find. All the gun laws do here is keep me from going into the city proper because I refuse to be a victom. If I have no choice but to go I will go as a government manufactured newly created criminal. Because I would rather explain it in court then be dead in the street. All gun control does is create criminals. If you take self defense away from your law abiding citizens you create victoms. Criminals love gun control laws its like a wolf in with the sheep. Criminals dont follow the laws...hello? That's why we call them criminals? Remember?

And hell no they cant sue the gun manufacturer.. What are you new?


----------



## Crixus

My dad gave us guns. Seriously,  christmas 1987 I got a marlin model 60 and one of those buckets of a buttload of bullets. Still have that here some place. I can't day I got special treatment,  but I can day I never felt the urge to shoot anyone I was mad at. It was a very weird idea.yup my folks were hippies.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> kids I grew up with who went to cushy wealthy private schools and who spent most of their time at a country club were able to score cocaine and weapons if they wanted them



Well, why wouldn't they be able to?  Anyone else can.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## auditor0007

TemplarKormac said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. Give us one such society, and I'll educate you on how a black market works, because you can't regulate them with gun laws. People will still get guns regardless.
> 
> You can keep repeating that tired talking point, but doing so doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...


Japan, end of story.


----------



## Just_Me

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who murders his own family was never "good people."
> 
> And your thought that not  having a gun means they give up and don't kill their family is based on what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means it's not as easy for them to do it.  Here is a simple fact that gun lovers refuse to admit.  Countries that do not allow guns have much much lower homicide rates than we do in the US.  That is just a fact that cannot be ignored.  More guns equate to more deaths.
Click to expand...

Thats just a flat out lie. Australias murders went down for a year or so then they went right back up. Now the weapon of choice seams to be a hammer. As it did with all the other countries I have seen the statistics on.I call BS on this one.


----------



## auditor0007

OKTexas said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?
> 
> You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.  Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the folks in Paris.
Click to expand...


France's murder rate is well below ours as are all OECD countries.


----------



## Just_Me

auditor0007 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. Give us one such society, and I'll educate you on how a black market works, because you can't regulate them with gun laws. People will still get guns regardless.
> 
> You can keep repeating that tired talking point, but doing so doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan, end of story.
Click to expand...

Japan is an island bone head.. And the murder rate is up in Japan not down.


----------



## auditor0007

Just_Me said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems is that many times good people who own guns become bad people when something sets them off.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who murders his own family was never "good people."
> 
> And your thought that not  having a gun means they give up and don't kill their family is based on what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means it's not as easy for them to do it.  Here is a simple fact that gun lovers refuse to admit.  Countries that do not allow guns have much much lower homicide rates than we do in the US.  That is just a fact that cannot be ignored.  More guns equate to more deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just a flat out lie. Australias murders went down for a year or so then they went right back up. Now the weapon of choice seams to be a hammer. As it did with all the other countries I have seen the statistics on.I call BS on this one.
Click to expand...


Australia's murder rate is more than six times that of the US.


----------



## Just_Me

auditor0007 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?
> 
> You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.  Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the folks in Paris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France's murder rate is well below ours as are all OECD countries.
Click to expand...

 No you want to compare apples to oranges because your argument dosent have a leg to stand on...OKHow many people died in that night club because no one had the means to fight back? How did the criminals get the guns to kill all those people? There are no guns in France remember? And just to stay on point gun crime went down but knife murders went up in france. How is no guns for citizens to defend themselves better? Stop trying to blame the hammer because you bent the nail.


----------



## OKTexas

auditor0007 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?
> 
> You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.  Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the folks in Paris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France's murder rate is well below ours as are all OECD countries.
Click to expand...


You claimed getting guns was very difficult, which wasn't the case for the terrorist, which proves even there, a determined criminal can get what ever they want. It has nothing to do with the over all murder rate, which by the way is climbing in the EU and going down in the US.


----------



## TemplarKormac

auditor0007 said:


> Japan, end of story.



The Yakuza, end of story.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## TemplarKormac

auditor0007 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. Give us one such society, and I'll educate you on how a black market works, because you can't regulate them with gun laws. People will still get guns regardless.
> 
> You can keep repeating that tired talking point, but doing so doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan, end of story.
Click to expand...


Alas, we ignore history. The history of Japan banning weapons began in the Tokugawa era when the Shogunate placed strict controls over the few gunsmiths in the country, and again beginning with the Meiji era against Bunun and Atayai aborigines and during the Taishō and early Shōwa periods ending in 1933. In the aboriginal's case, the Japanese instilled strict, targeted gun laws against them, confiscated or impounded their firearms, and sparked several armed insurrections in the process, most notably the Dafen incident.

In 1915, the Bunun aboriginals were fed up with the Japanese government's policy (implemented a year earlier) calling for all aboriginal firearms to be impounded when hunting expeditions ended.  Their leader, Raho Ari started a rebellion in Dafen by which his clan slaughtered an entire police platoon. It would go on like this for the next 18 years. Over the 37 year time frame from 1896 to 1933, 7,081 Japanese had died (4,422 civilians dead). Also during that time period, over 29,000 aboriginal firearms were confiscated. _*Now, keep in mind, that in order for the Japanese government to instill the strict gun/sword control laws they have now, they had to kill or wound thousands of people in the past in order to do it. Is that what you want our government to do? *_

The Japanese gun law begins by saying "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." This law reflects centuries of repulsion to the concept of civilians owning firearms, beginning from the Edo, Tokugawa and Meiji periods on.

What you're advocating for is gun confiscation, pure and simple, possibly by force. This is the most brazen defense of gun confiscation I have ever seen to date on this board and it only took four words. You can't honestly believe America's hundreds of millions of gunowners will willingly or peacefully hand over their firearms because you want them to?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Luddly Neddite said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, gun proponents and the NRA will claim that the latest ruling allowing families of the Sandy Hook massacre of children, is a ridiculous ruling.....They will follow up with various scenarios that were someone to be killed by a knife or a rope, that knives and rope manufacturers could ALSO be sued....but when making such comparisons they show both their prejudices and downright stupidity.
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....whereas knives or ropes have much different purposes and the flooding of some high-crime areas with weapons whose main purpose is killing of maiming is totally unacceptable.
> 
> This ruling is a small but necessary first step toward restoring sanity. The Sandy Hook massacre could not have been as lethal with knives or ropes. Let us join the rest of the sane, and progressive world community where those weapons (mostly made for military purposes) do NOT make their way into deranged and evil hands.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see.
> 
> Anyone with a double digit IQ or the ability to think for themselves knows what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> "The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see."_
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> The only people who talk about banning are the gun nutters.
> 
> They are instructed to do that as a smoke screen to hide the real issues - which are being discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...

You're dimmer than humanly possible.

the amount of unconstitutional gun laws is staggering, but you pretend that this isn't about abolishing guns all you want, being truthful with yourself must be impossible by now as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crixus said:


> My dad gave us guns. Seriously,  christmas 1987 I got a marlin model 60 and one of those buckets of a buttload of bullets. Still have that here some place. I can't day I got special treatment,  but I can day I never felt the urge to shoot anyone I was mad at. It was a very weird idea.yup my folks were hippies.



Every time I walk out of my house armed, I pray I don't have to use it.  Anti-gun Nazis really believe that people who carry are itching to pull that trigger on another human being.  

My first gun was purchased after my apartment was robbed, and the people that did it were connected and very dangerous.  I made sure they knew I was then armed.  They thought I didn't know who robbed me, but I knew quite well who did it. 

They used to come around and I didn't want these people here.  They asked strange questions about me and my activities.  I told them that I had a friend come over from time to time and pick up my car so it looked like I wasn't home.  I told them I was going to get even with the MF's that robbed me even if I have to take time off of work to set them up. 

They quit coming around and I haven't seen them since.  That was 30 years ago.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Then let's have a tax to vote too
> How about a free speech tax
> 
> How about a search and seizure tax
> or a tax to invoke the fifth amendment
> 
> If you can't pay any of these taxes on your Constitutional right s then tough shit you can't exercise them



Again, there's no constitutional right to weapon ownership.  Sorry, I know you want to think there is, but there isn't. 

Scalia's taking a dirt nap, and your bizarro interpretation of the MILITIA AMENDMENT is done.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Every time I walk out of my house armed, I pray I don't have to use it. Anti-gun Nazis really believe that people who carry are itching to pull that trigger on another human being.
> 
> My first gun was purchased after my apartment was robbed, and the people that did it were connected and very dangerous. I made sure they knew I was then armed. They thought I didn't know who robbed me, but I knew quite well who did it.
> 
> They used to come around and I didn't want these people here. They asked strange questions about me and my activities. I told them that I had a friend come over from time to time and pick up my car so it looked like I wasn't home. I told them I was going to get even with the MF's that robbed me even if I have to take time off of work to set them up.
> 
> They quit coming around and I haven't seen them since. That was 30 years ago.



So it sounds to me like you scared your probably innocent neighbors away, and got that reputation as "the crazy guy who might shoot your kids".


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so. Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.



If no one is manufacturing new guns and old guns are removed from the street, criminals will have a hard time getting them. 

Like they do  in the UK, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Canada.  YOu know, the countries that don't seem to have these sorts of problems.


----------



## JoeB131

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> so adam would have got them from someone else....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy had no job, no money, and frankly, probably would have looked just seedy enough to make even most gun dealers look at him twice.
> 
> But I'd be all for suing whoever gave him a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gun dealer?....the dealer im talking about sells out of the trunk of his car....
Click to expand...


Well, that guy we can throw in jail.   But again, Lanza had NO MONEY to pay that guy.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> So you wouldn't sue the person he killed so he could take a gun.



If his mother had lived, I'd be all for prosecuting her crazy Prepper ass.  And then letting all the dykes in prison know exactly what she did.


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> guess what-the Banoid assholes claimed that crime would go up as a result of the ban dying
> 
> THEY WERE WRONG. They are lying assholes . Gil Douchebag has no business holding office since he is crapping over the constitution he took an oath to protect



YOu do realize we have OBSCENE levels of crime in this country, right?


----------



## JoeB131

turtledude said:


> better idea-put the assholes who filed the lawsuit into the poor house and bankrupt the ass wart attorneys who filed that crap.



How were they responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook?  

Bushmaster sold a military grade weapon to a crazy woman.  Her crazy son took that weapon and killed 26 kids and teachers. 

They really, really need to be held accountable.


----------



## JoeB131

Rozman said:


> Can someone,anyone explain the basis for a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer other then the gun malfunctioned
> or failed to perform as advertised?....
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....



again, you need to go back to the Tobacco Lawsuit.  It wasn't the design of the product that was the issue, it was the business practices of the industry.  

The thing was, Bushmaster sold a military grade weapon to a woman who was mentally unstable with a son who was outright crazy.  They pushed to sell increasingly dangerous weapons to unstable people.  

That's why they are liable.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's have a tax to vote too
> How about a free speech tax
> 
> How about a search and seizure tax
> or a tax to invoke the fifth amendment
> 
> If you can't pay any of these taxes on your Constitutional right s then tough shit you can't exercise them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no constitutional right to weapon ownership.  Sorry, I know you want to think there is, but there isn't.
> 
> Scalia's taking a dirt nap, and your bizarro interpretation of the MILITIA AMENDMENT is done.
Click to expand...

The peoples right to keep (own) and bear arms shall not be infringed

The militia does not have any rights the PEOPLE hold the right to keep and bear arms

Just because you say something doesn't make it so.

 in March 2007 the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote for the 2-1 majority:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't sue the person he killed so he could take a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his mother had lived, I'd be all for prosecuting her crazy Prepper ass.  And then letting all the dykes in prison know exactly what she did.
Click to expand...


IF ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas


----------



## amrchaos

There is a case where a Gun maker can be sued!

That is if the weapon in question is intended for illegal use.
Good luck trying to prove that one.


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone,anyone explain the basis for a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer other then the gun malfunctioned
> or failed to perform as advertised?....
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you need to go back to the Tobacco Lawsuit.  It wasn't the design of the product that was the issue, it was the business practices of the industry.
> 
> The thing was, Bushmaster sold a military grade weapon to a woman who was mentally unstable with a son who was outright crazy.  They pushed to sell increasingly dangerous weapons to unstable people.
> 
> That's why they are liable.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what a "military grade" weapon is??
An AR15 is not a military grade weapon, it's a sporting rifle. Dumbfuck

...owning a firearm is a right, the same cannot be said for tobacco silly boy, no go hide. Lol


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone,anyone explain the basis for a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer other then the gun malfunctioned
> or failed to perform as advertised?....
> 
> If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you need to go back to the Tobacco Lawsuit.  It wasn't the design of the product that was the issue, it was the business practices of the industry.
> 
> The thing was, Bushmaster sold a military grade weapon to a woman who was mentally unstable with a son who was outright crazy.  They pushed to sell increasingly dangerous weapons to unstable people.
> 
> That's why they are liable.
Click to expand...







You dumbass bleeding hearts need to learn the difference between a sporting rifle and a military grade rifle...

Joe can't help it though he's as dumb as bag of hammers, that's what happens when you're living in your moms basement… LOL


----------



## nat4900

Just_Me said:


> How is no guns for citizens to defend themselves better?




Find EXACTLY where any of us stated "no guns for citizens"???

You right wing morons use the same lame script...try thinking on your own.....its fun.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Just_Me said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is no guns for citizens to defend themselves better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find EXACTLY where any of us stated "no guns for citizens"???
> 
> You right wing morons use the same lame script...try thinking on your own.....its fun.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a slippery slope?? LOL


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Just_Me said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is no guns for citizens to defend themselves better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find EXACTLY where any of us stated "no guns for citizens"???
> 
> You right wing morons use the same lame script...try thinking on your own.....its fun.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Wilbur Right

rustic the cartoon man.

You want a tissue?

Rusty are you all for wannabe gang bangers having great weapons? 

Cause if gang bangers  couldn't arm themselves, we would be sliding down that slippery slope. Let's arm everybody so that no one slips.

Right rusty?


----------



## Rustic

Wilbur Right said:


> rustic the cartoon man.
> 
> You want a tissue?
> 
> Rusty are you all for wannabe gang bangers having great weapons?
> 
> Cause if gang bangers  couldn't arm themselves, we would be sliding down that slippery slope. Let's arm everybody so that no one slips.
> 
> Right rusty?


Do you know what law-abiding is?? LOL


----------



## Rustic

Wilbur Right said:


> rustic the cartoon man.
> 
> You want a tissue?
> 
> Rusty are you all for wannabe gang bangers having great weapons?
> 
> Cause if gang bangers  couldn't arm themselves, we would be sliding down that slippery slope. Let's arm everybody so that no one slips.
> 
> Right rusty?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Wilbur Right

Rustic said:


> Do you know what law-abiding is?? LOL






A gang banger wannabe has broken what laws rusty. LOL


Besides that, every gun owner out there has broken a law. What does that mean rusty?

Do you want to slide down that slope or not?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Wilbur Right

Cartoon man, you want a tissue or not? Lol.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

It would be a good ruling if there were malfunctions and guns suddenly started killing people on their own but that's never happened in the history of ever.


----------



## Rustic

Wilbur Right said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what law-abiding is?? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gang banger wannabe has broken what laws rusty. LOL
> 
> 
> Besides that, every gun owner out there has broken a law. What does that mean rusty?
> 
> Do you want to slide down that slope or not?
Click to expand...



Laws are only for the law-abiding… Criminals do not obey laws thus - they are called criminals.
Putting more repetitive laws on the books will do nothing but waste time and money, anyway gun violence is a non-issue in this country. Criminal behavior is a whole different story... Dumbass


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43
> 
> 
> 
> There are other violent crimes besides homicides you know
> 
> And in the UK they don't classify a any death as a murder unless someone is convicted of murder
> 
> House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
> 
> Look at section 2 paragraph 35
> 
> *. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction,*
> 
> We call any death not deemed suicide or an accident a murder
Click to expand...


You've never read a coroners report, what you want to call murder, the coroner describes as "at the hands of another".


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21
> 
> Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43
> 
> 
> 
> There are other violent crimes besides homicides you know
> 
> And in the UK they don't classify a any death as a murder unless someone is convicted of murder
> 
> House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
> 
> Look at section 2 paragraph 35
> 
> *. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction,*
> 
> We call any death not deemed suicide or an accident a murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never read a coroners report, what you want to call murder, the coroner describes as "at the hands of another".
Click to expand...


Doesn't change the fact that all deaths as far as the FBI is concerned that are not suicides, accidents, or deemed otherwise due to negligence are tallied as homicides.


----------



## Wry Catcher

hadit said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.


----------



## hadit

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
Click to expand...

And how does that prove the original contention, that gun manufacturers are doing what tobacco companies did and making their products addictive?

Edit to add:  A gun certainly does give a woman walking alone a sense of confidence and power.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
Click to expand...



maybe in your twisted mind butt head


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
Click to expand...


What kind of impact?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of impact?
Click to expand...



his post demonstrates why he should not be allowed a firearm


----------



## kwc57

Luddly Neddite said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite insane, and fully evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting to save children's lives is "insane" and "evil"?
> 
> What is insane and evil is is lining the pockets of Repub congress, NRA lobbyists and gun makers at the expense of innocent children.
Click to expand...


Here's an idea.  Protect the children instead of making them convenient targets in gun free zones.


----------



## Wry Catcher

hadit said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does that prove the original contention, that gun manufacturers are doing what tobacco companies did and making their products addictive?
> 
> Edit to add:  A gun certainly does give a woman walking alone a sense of confidence and power.
Click to expand...


That sense is exactly the point, having a gun impacts judgment and can lead to someone walking into harm's way.


----------



## Rustic

kwc57 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite insane, and fully evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting to save children's lives is "insane" and "evil"?
> 
> What is insane and evil is is lining the pockets of Repub congress, NRA lobbyists and gun makers at the expense of innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an idea.  Protect the children instead of making them convenient targets in gun free zones.
Click to expand...

...And Buy more guns and ammo.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....


This is a lie; as your entire argument rests on a lie, it fails.
Miserably.


----------



## Centinel

JoeB131 said:


> The thing was, Bushmaster sold a military grade weapon to a woman who was mentally unstable with a son who was outright crazy.



No, they didn't.


----------



## hadit

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does that prove the original contention, that gun manufacturers are doing what tobacco companies did and making their products addictive?
> 
> Edit to add:  A gun certainly does give a woman walking alone a sense of confidence and power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sense is exactly the point, having a gun impacts judgment and can lead to someone walking into harm's way.
Click to expand...

It also leads to the vulnerable among us having richer, fuller, more independent lives.  How many smaller or elderly women relish the idea that they cannot move around their neighborhood without an escort?


----------



## 2aguy

Crixus said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, it stinks that this false flag crap just won't die. Whatever. Anyway, that Lanza got the guns was his mother's fault. Had she not been killed she would be the one who should face civil action as well as criminal charges. It was HER fault the boy got the weapon. Period. A law suit against Remington won't do anything but make them charge more for guns. In the end, they will lose. It's a shame that in this country acountability in flat out gone. I'm fat and is someone else's fault, I cut my finger, it's the knife makers fault because they made the knife sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
Click to expand...



How do you know she did not secure the guns?  The notes they have from the shooter show he was planning this for about 2 years........do you really think a methodical planner, who was willing to commit murder of children......couldn't have gotten past whatever she did to secure her weapons?


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and. Ammo


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does that prove the original contention, that gun manufacturers are doing what tobacco companies did and making their products addictive?
> 
> Edit to add:  A gun certainly does give a woman walking alone a sense of confidence and power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sense is exactly the point, having a gun impacts judgment and can lead to someone walking into harm's way.
Click to expand...



Wrong........that is you talking out of your ass.....

There are were over 320,000,000 million guns in private hands in 2013.....there were 8,124 gun murders in that time, 90% of the shooters were convicted criminals who should not have been able to own or carry those guns and had them illegally......so no, it isn't the 356,991,876 million guns in private hands and the people who have them who make poor judgements simply because they have a gun......it is sociopaths with long criminal records...
.

you are wrong......356,991,876 million times you are wrong.


----------



## 2aguy

Crixus said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
Click to expand...



again....he planned this for 2 years........you do not know what he did to get the guns......give me two years and if your guns are locked up I will get them from you.


----------



## Valerie

Crixus said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
Click to expand...








The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*

*FIREARMS*

*Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*

Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun

*Found in Lanza Home:*

Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol






_The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._

*MAGAZINES*

*Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*

Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
10 30-round .223 magazines
6 30-round 9mm magazines
6 30-round 10mm magazines

*Found in Lanza Home:*

Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
*
AMMUNITION*

*Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*

20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
90 rounds of 10mm ammunition




_The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._

*Found in Lanza Home:*

Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
31 .22-caliber rounds
Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
Two Win 9mm rounds
Small box of miscellaneous rounds

*When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*

What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so. Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If no one is manufacturing new guns and old guns are removed from the street, criminals will have a hard time getting them.
> 
> Like they do  in the UK, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Canada.  YOu know, the countries that don't seem to have these sorts of problems.
Click to expand...



No...criminals in all of those countries get guns easily....even in Japan...when the Yakuza bosses decide that they want to kill people they get guns....look up the season of the Pineapple during the last Yakuza war in 2006....they were throwing grenades at each other so often they named a season after it........the only thing keeping killing low in japan is that the bosses there want to make money...not settle insults on facebook by murdering people.......

Culture, not guns, is the issue with all of those countries.....and the gun crime rate is going up in Britain and Australia....and France...remember Charlie Hebdo and Paris...?


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
Click to expand...



So what?  He could have killed those kids with a pump action shotgun, or a handgun........there are millions of people in the country with that and more and they aren't killing people....it isn't the guns or the ammo twit...it is the criminal intent and that is damned rare........

Again  3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands...and the year of Sandy Hook.....2 were used to commit mass shootings.....

Whatever kind of anti gun drone you are......I can see you guys are getting frisky thinking hilary will make your gun banning dreams come true.......


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> better idea-put the assholes who filed the lawsuit into the poor house and bankrupt the ass wart attorneys who filed that crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were they responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Bushmaster sold a military grade weapon to a crazy woman.  Her crazy son took that weapon and killed 26 kids and teachers.
> 
> They really, really need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...



It's not a military grade weapon moron.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> guess what-the Banoid assholes claimed that crime would go up as a result of the ban dying
> 
> THEY WERE WRONG. They are lying assholes . Gil Douchebag has no business holding office since he is crapping over the constitution he took an oath to protect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu do realize we have OBSCENE levels of crime in this country, right?
Click to expand...



Wrong moron....our violent crime rate is going down...as more Americans own and actually carry guns......you are a liar...which is why we do not trust you anti gun morons........nothing you say can be trusted....

not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....those days are over ...we are going to fight you at each step....moron.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your gun laws do is kill innocent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure......the Brady Bill "killed" thousands of innocent people.......right???
Click to expand...


Rim shot!

I said "gun laws," to take that to one specific law is retarded.  Your normal fare.  The problem with the Brady Bill is that it's useless.  People who try to buy guns illegally because their rights have been restricted face no consequence.  If we were arresting them and charging them, then it would be useful


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
Click to expand...



She had seven guns........thats it....?  Really....and you nutters think she had an aresenal......I thought, from what you nutters went on and on about, that she had at least 30 or more........

You guys keep talking out of your asses.........what morons....

A bolt action .22......a .22 starter pistol.........did you break out into sweats typing that?........get real........you guys need help

7 guns......you guys are nuts.


----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
Click to expand...

That's a very average collection… Maybe even A bit on the small side.
Nothing military grade there or out of the ordinary...


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> better idea-put the assholes who filed the lawsuit into the poor house and bankrupt the ass wart attorneys who filed that crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were they responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Bushmaster sold a military grade weapon to a crazy woman.  Her crazy son took that weapon and killed 26 kids and teachers.
> 
> They really, really need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a military grade weapon moron.
Click to expand...

Joel spends too much time in his mother's basement to know the difference…


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Can I sue liberal politicians for causing me undue stress whenever they open their mouths?  Since Obama, Reid and Pelosi, lied about the unaffordable healthcare act, can I get them for bait and switch?  Can I sue Obama for failing to uphold is responsibilities to protect the US citizen?
Maybe We the People can sue the DNC for allowing such failures to represent the democrats.


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She had seven guns........thats it....?  Really....and you nutters think she had an aresenal......I thought, from what you nutters went on and on about, that she had at least 30 or more........
> 
> You guys keep talking out of your asses.........what morons....
> 
> A bolt action .22......a .22 starter pistol.........did you break out into sweats typing that?........get real........you guys need help
> 
> 7 guns......you guys are nuts.
Click to expand...

They would have a coronary if they saw my collection... LOL


----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> Here's an idea. Protect the children instead of making them convenient targets in gun free zones.




"Brilliant" suggestion....I'm sure no one has ever thought of that.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
Click to expand...



No it doesn't.  You should stop reading your conspiracy sites.


----------



## nat4900

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie; as your entire argument rests on a lie, it fails.
> Miserably.




Well, you're right I missed other reasons for those big guns being manufactured......That is, to make morons feel more "patriotic", "macho" and mitigate the size of their small penises....


----------



## LordBrownTrout

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea. Protect the children instead of making them convenient targets in gun free zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Brilliant" suggestion....I'm sure no one has ever thought of that.
Click to expand...



Evidently not or we wouldn't have sandy hook.


----------



## Valerie

2aguy said:


> How do you know she did not secure the guns?  The notes they have from the shooter show he was planning this for about 2 years........do you really think a methodical planner, who was willing to commit murder of children......couldn't have gotten past whatever she did to secure her weapons?




according to the news stories, he and his mom had been gun enthusiasts who frequented shooting ranges since he was very young.  doesn't seem there was anything illegal with what they did or owned, until the day he snapped.  the mom may have failed to secure the weapons properly but he would have got around that anyway... she also failed to take his mental illness seriously, maybe she was also mentally ill.  hard to say how things could have gone differently or what law could prevent random acts of violence, but there are mental health check points for a reason, and somehow these kooks still had an arsenal of weapons that included weapons that have no other lawful purpose than massive assault on people, with no legitimate rationale for any lawful purpose... so this story demonstrates a few weak spots in the law that we should somehow tighten up, so as to prevent or diminish possibility of other incidents...

whatever happened in this story is not the be-all and end-all to rationalize the need for stricter gun laws, so your harping on the semantics of this case, or that case, or any case, is really beside the point... in some instances there are liability issues with gun manufacturers and some instances the liability falls elsewhere, or even nowhere at all... regardless of minutia from case to case, the public_ should have _the ability to make a liability claim and argue their legal case.  the fact remains that there is no legit reason for gun manufacturers to be comfortably shielded by a law which blindly relinquishes them from any culpability whatsoever.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; as your entire argument rests on a lie, it fails.
> Miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're right I missed other reasons for those big guns being manufactured......That is, to make morons feel more "patriotic", "macho" and mitigate the size of their small penises....
Click to expand...

You and joe have a obsession with penis for some reason no one here wants to know... Now go hide.


----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know she did not secure the guns?  The notes they have from the shooter show he was planning this for about 2 years........do you really think a methodical planner, who was willing to commit murder of children......couldn't have gotten past whatever she did to secure her weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> according to the news stories, he and his mom had been gun enthusiasts who frequented shooting ranges since he was very young.  doesn't seem there was anything illegal with what they did or owned, until the day he snapped.  the mom may have failed to secure the weapons properly but he would have got around that anyway... she also failed to take his mental illness seriously, maybe she was also mentally ill.  hard to say how things could have gone differently or what law could prevent random acts of violence, but there are mental health check points for a reason, and somehow these kooks still had an arsenal of weapons that included weapons that have no other lawful purpose than massive assault on people, with no legitimate rationale for any lawful purpose... so this story demonstrates a few weak spots in the law that we should somehow tighten up, so as to prevent or diminish possibility of other incidents...
> 
> whatever happened in this story is not the be all and end all to rationalize the need for stricter gun laws, so your harping on the semantics of this case, or that case, or any case, is really beside the point... in some instances there are liability issues with gun manufacturers and some instances the liability falls elsewhere, or even nowhere at all... regardless of minutia from case to case, the public_ should have _the ability to make a liability claim and argue their legal case.  the fact remains that there is no legit reason for gun manufacturers to be comfortably shielded by a law which blindly relinquishes them from any culpability whatsoever.
Click to expand...

You're stupid in the head, blame everybody but the criminal… LOL


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Rustic said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; as your entire argument rests on a lie, it fails.
> Miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're right I missed other reasons for those big guns being manufactured......That is, to make morons feel more "patriotic", "macho" and mitigate the size of their small penises....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and joe have a obsession with penis for some reason no one here wants to know... Now go hide.
Click to expand...


It some type of weird fetish that they have.  Anytime, someone brings up guns they start romanticizing about penis size.


----------



## Valerie

_Gun companies do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy. 

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years*. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.*


Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."


In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.


In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it._

_FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?

15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm_


----------



## Valerie

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said *Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield. *

*"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,"* he said.

At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But *the issues at hand are more complex*, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at _Adames v. Beretta_. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say *plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.*




^ bingo


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of leftists actually do propose banning guns, read the threads.
> 
> But as for the rest of you, when guns are at home in safes because they aren't allowed to be carried, what good does that do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, dumbass....no one except your ilk is saying to "ban guns".....We are talking here about assault weapons that are manufactured ONLY to kill in short time as many people as possible,
> 
> You right wingers are either idiots or are lying to yourselves.
Click to expand...


Really, is that what you Republicans propose?  And how are right wing nut jobs like you going to keep criminals from buying illegal


nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of leftists actually do propose banning guns, read the threads.
> 
> But as for the rest of you, when guns are at home in safes because they aren't allowed to be carried, what good does that do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, dumbass....no one except your ilk is saying to "ban guns".....We are talking here about assault weapons that are manufactured ONLY to kill in short time as many people as possible,
> 
> You right wingers are either idiots or are lying to yourselves.
Click to expand...


Republicans just don't want to deal with reality, do you?  RWNJ


----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


> _Gun companies do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.
> 
> To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years*. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.*
> 
> 
> Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."
> 
> 
> In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.
> 
> 
> In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it._
> 
> _FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
> 
> 15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes
> 
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm_


How About let's blame the criminal... You know, the one who pulled the trigger with no help from anyone else. Dumbass


----------



## Brain357

Will be a tough case to win.


----------



## Rustic

Brain357 said:


> Will be a tough case to win.


Just like any frivolous lawsuit, no point to it… The country has much bigger fish to fry. Dumbass


----------



## kaz

OKTexas said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your gun laws do is kill innocent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure......the Brady Bill "killed" thousands of innocent people.......right???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Brady bill had no real impact one way or the other, even the CDC says gun laws don't reduce crime.
Click to expand...


Totally useless law


----------



## Valerie

_*In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. *By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.

*Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose*, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"_


If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?







_Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press_


_The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise._

_http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1_


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.
> 
> It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world.  And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?
> 
> You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves.  Honest citizens follow the law.  The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law.  You didn't see that one coming.  But there was a hint.  They are criminals ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.  Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the folks in Paris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France's murder rate is well below ours as are all OECD countries.
Click to expand...


And as I keep pointing out, there are a plethora of differences between us and France besides gun laws.  To conclude gun laws will make us the same is mentally challenged.  And as I also keep pointing out, as the population of France keeps getting more diverse like us, murder rates are shooting up.

John Adams:  Facts are stubborn things


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Valerie said:


> _*In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. *By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.
> 
> *Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose*, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"_
> 
> 
> If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press_
> 
> 
> _The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise._
> 
> _http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1_


Did you know that automatic and semi-automatic weapons were allowed to cross the border into Mexico, because the Obama FBI allowed it with the Fast and Furious agenda?  A US border patrol agent was executed by one of these weapons?  Should Obama and Eric(the racist) Holder be sued by the grieving family of the border agent?
Documents confirm Eric Holder’s role in Fast and Furious cover-up


> Documents confirm Eric Holder’s role in Fast and Furious cover-up


 Shame law abiding citizens get punished when liberals let bad guys get guns.


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> Just_Me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say the gun made them turn bad,  but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family?  This happens quite frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who murders his own family was never "good people."
> 
> And your thought that not  having a gun means they give up and don't kill their family is based on what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means it's not as easy for them to do it.  Here is a simple fact that gun lovers refuse to admit.  Countries that do not allow guns have much much lower homicide rates than we do in the US.  That is just a fact that cannot be ignored.  More guns equate to more deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just a flat out lie. Australias murders went down for a year or so then they went right back up. Now the weapon of choice seams to be a hammer. As it did with all the other countries I have seen the statistics on.I call BS on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Australia's murder rate is more than six times that of the US.
Click to expand...


No it's not, you are full of shit


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know she did not secure the guns?  The notes they have from the shooter show he was planning this for about 2 years........do you really think a methodical planner, who was willing to commit murder of children......couldn't have gotten past whatever she did to secure her weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> according to the news stories, he and his mom had been gun enthusiasts who frequented shooting ranges since he was very young.  doesn't seem there was anything illegal with what they did or owned, until the day he snapped.  the mom may have failed to secure the weapons properly but he would have got around that anyway... she also failed to take his mental illness seriously, maybe she was also mentally ill.  hard to say how things could have gone differently or what law could prevent random acts of violence, but there are mental health check points for a reason, and somehow these kooks still had an arsenal of weapons that included weapons that have no other lawful purpose than massive assault on people, with no legitimate rationale for any lawful purpose... so this story demonstrates a few weak spots in the law that we should somehow tighten up, so as to prevent or diminish possibility of other incidents...
> 
> whatever happened in this story is not the be-all and end-all to rationalize the need for stricter gun laws, so your harping on the semantics of this case, or that case, or any case, is really beside the point... in some instances there are liability issues with gun manufacturers and some instances the liability falls elsewhere, or even nowhere at all... regardless of minutia from case to case, the public_ should have _the ability to make a liability claim and argue their legal case.  the fact remains that there is no legit reason for gun manufacturers to be comfortably shielded by a law which blindly relinquishes them from any culpability whatsoever.
Click to expand...



Wrong on all counts......none of those weapons is a military grade weapon.  7 guns...an arsenal?  Do you think before you post?    Have you ever heard of self defense...a lawful purpose....how about competition....?  How about just collecting for the sake of collecting guns...just like stamps......

As was pointed out...if the police can have a gun....we get the gun..........we pay their salaries..we supply their equipment......not the other way around.  Dittos the military...any rifle the military has, we paid for .....and we also get to own....we are not serfs........they are not our masters......


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> _*In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. *By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.
> 
> *Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose*, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"_
> 
> 
> If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press_
> 
> 
> _The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise._
> 
> _http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1_




Yes....thanks for pointing out that if you give gun grabbers an inch they will take a mile......gun grabbers interpret the statement about the decision not exluding regulation of guns to mean you get to regulate them out of existence...we get it...we know what you want...and we are going to fight you ......in the courts and at the ballot box.

Oh....and this is another lie.....

_The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise.
_
gun murder in 2014....8,124.

Accidental gun deaths 2013...  505

Where are the 10s of thousands.....if you guys can't lie you can't make an argument......

No, there was never  any flexibility between the parties.....you gun grabbers never intended to take common sense rules and then step back....you have always intended to ban all guns....and to incrementally ban what you can get now...and slowly get the rest....


----------



## skookerasbil

Valerie said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
Click to expand...



Oooooops..........forgot about the 12G shotgun in the glove compartment of the Honda......with several boxes of shotshells as well!!

Official reports stated that hundreds of rounds were fired in the school. Clearly very easy for a 120 pound kid to lug 3 weapons around the school, hundreds of rounds of ammo at the same time and have the most prolific shot-kill ratio of any mass murderer of all time!!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Valerie said:


> _*In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. *By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.
> 
> *Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose*, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"_
> 
> 
> If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press_
> 
> 
> _The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise._
> 
> _http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1_





> If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?


 I am at the point in my life that if the government tries to take away my 2nd amendment rights, then those trying, may not like the results.  Over 100,000,000 US citizens own guns.  You will find that the constitution supersedes any executive actions that a vagina president wants to sign.  Did you notice how a liberal politicians says guns are bad , yet walks around with guys protecting that liberal with automatic guns?  You liberals aren't worth being saved, that is why you don't get armed guards and are preyed upon by criminals.


----------



## nat4900

Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???


In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths *each day* and more than three deaths *each hour*.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

I*n the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.*

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luddly Neddite said:


> _
> "The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see."_
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> The only people who talk about banning are the gun nutters.
> 
> They are instructed to do that as a smoke screen to hide the real issues - which are being discussed in this thread.



You may be stupid Pillowbite, but you make up for it by lying incessantly.



> nat4900 said: ↑
> The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???
> 
> 
> In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths *each day* and more than three deaths *each hour*.
> 
> 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
> 
> Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.
> 
> Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
> 
> I*n the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.*
> 
> Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries



What could go wrong?  Like you're in a school or office and someone comes in and starts shooting people room by room and you have no gun to defend yourself?  Or you could have a gun, be in the military and be trained to use guns, but you don't have it with you because Clinton decided not to allow guns in parking lots in DC and someone starts shooting you and you have no way to fight back?  Your estranged, abusive ex husband approaches you with a gun and you're fucked, he kills you but you're in a parking lot banning guns and can't have one?  OH wait, those are "what could go wrong" with your plan ...


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???
> 
> 
> In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths *each day* and more than three deaths *each hour*.
> 
> 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
> 
> Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.
> 
> Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
> 
> I*n the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.*
> 
> Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries



So Comrade, if we end civil rights as you demand, there will be no more suicides?

"killed" implies "killed by."

Look, you're a Communist, you have not a hint of a shred of integrity, I get it.

But suicides are not "killed."

Sure, you HAVE to be dishonest, it's your nature and your whole bullshit scheme to end civil rights falls apart if you don't lie.

But sploogy, how many people are "killed by" another person with a gun each year?


Hmmm?


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???
> 
> 
> In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths *each day* and more than three deaths *each hour*.
> 
> 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
> 
> Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.
> 
> Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
> 
> I*n the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.*
> 
> Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Comrade, if we end civil rights as you demand, there will be no more suicides?
> 
> "killed" implies "killed by."
> 
> Look, you're a Communist, you have not a hint of a shred of integrity, I get it.
> 
> But suicides are not "killed."
> 
> Sure, you HAVE to be dishonest, it's your nature and your whole bullshit scheme to end civil rights falls apart if you don't lie.
> 
> But sploogy, how many people are "killed by" another person with a gun each year?
> 
> 
> Hmmm?
Click to expand...


Yes, he is intellectually dishonest.  The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides.  They just kill themselves other ways


----------



## SwimExpert

TNHarley said:


> Being able to sue people who didn't do anything is setting a HUGE precedent.



Actually, it's always been permissible to sue people who didn't do anything.  Anyone can file suit against anyone for anything.  The question is whether the suit will be successful.

The ruling that everyone is freaking out about is nothing more than a media created spectacle.  It was a procedural matter which the defendants probably didn't even expect to win in the first place.  All the court said is that the defense that was raised isn't applicable to pre-trial dismissal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luddly Neddite said:


> Wanting to save children's lives is "insane" and "evil"?



Pillowbite, you just lied that "no one wants to ban guns."

Yet here you are defending banning guns. I understand that integrity is something you have purged yourself entirely of.

Gnat doesn't want to save "childrens lives," Gnat, like you, wants to end civil rights. Like you, if given the chance to kill these same children in the womb, Gnat would jump at the chance.

You seek to disarm the potential enemies of the party - nothing more or less.



> What is insane and evil is is lining the pockets of Repub congress, NRA lobbyists and gun makers at the expense of innocent children.



Thanks Herr Goebbels, mindless demagoguery always improves a conversation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; as your entire argument rests on a lie, it fails.
> Miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're right I missed other reasons for those big guns being manufactured......That is, to make morons feel more "patriotic", "macho" and mitigate the size of their small penises....
Click to expand...

Thank you for the admission of your lie and failure of your argument.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rustic said:


> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol



But it has PLASTIC on it!!!!!

New term from the anti-liberty stupid fucks, "Bullet Button."


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways




You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???
> In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths *each day* and more than three deaths *each hour*.


In the US, for every gun used to commit a murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
Your conclusion:   We need more gun control.
Thank you for marginalizing yourself.


----------



## Uncensored2008

SwimExpert said:


> Actually, it's always been permissible to sue people who didn't do anything.  Anyone can file suit against anyone for anything.  The question is whether the suit will be successful.
> 
> The ruling that everyone is freaking out about is nothing more than a media created spectacle.  It was a procedural matter which the defendants probably didn't even expect to win in the first place.  All the court said is that the defense that was raised isn't applicable to pre-trial dismissal.



There is a legal concept known as "standing."

Learn it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
Click to expand...

If by 'we" you mean the animals that live in the inner cities, then you're right.


----------



## SwimExpert

Uncensored2008 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's always been permissible to sue people who didn't do anything.  Anyone can file suit against anyone for anything.  The question is whether the suit will be successful.
> 
> The ruling that everyone is freaking out about is nothing more than a media created spectacle.  It was a procedural matter which the defendants probably didn't even expect to win in the first place.  All the court said is that the defense that was raised isn't applicable to pre-trial dismissal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a legal concept known as "standing."
> 
> Learn it.
Click to expand...


*yawn*

I suggest you learn it, so that you don't come in here again and try to abuse the notion to fit your idiotic whims.  You are such a dumb sucker.  You've taken the liberal bait, and are up in a hissy believing the media bullshit they want you to believe.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
Click to expand...


Actually you just said you don't like stats.  Let me repeat it for you:

"The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways"


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea. Protect the children instead of making them convenient targets in gun free zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Brilliant" suggestion....I'm sure no one has ever thought of that.
Click to expand...


Intelligent and logical people have, but the hand wringing, bed wetting liberals keep clutching their pearls and fighting it.  Imagine, thinking that making children more vulnerable is somehow protecting them.


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???
> 
> 
> In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths *each day* and more than three deaths *each hour*.
> 
> 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
> 
> Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.
> 
> Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
> 
> I*n the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.*
> 
> Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries



31,076?  That's a bargain compared to the 765,651 abortion murders in 2010 as reported by the CDC.  Are you as concerned about those innocent children too?


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> so adam would have got them from someone else....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy had no job, no money, and frankly, probably would have looked just seedy enough to make even most gun dealers look at him twice.
> 
> But I'd be all for suing whoever gave him a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gun dealer?....the dealer im talking about sells out of the trunk of his car....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that guy we can throw in jail.   But again, Lanza had NO MONEY to pay that guy.
Click to expand...

were theres a will there is a way joe....but keep on reaching....


----------



## Avatar4321

If you want to destroy the legal system sure.

If you want justice not at all


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> Actually you just said you don't like stats. Let me repeat it for you:
> 
> "The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways"




Hey, half-brained....Are we talking about suicides on this thread or are we talking about a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for putting out assault weapons to MAXIMIZE the number of mass shootings?


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you just said you don't like stats. Let me repeat it for you:
> 
> "The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, half-brained....Are we talking about suicides on this thread or are we talking about a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for putting out assault weapons to MAXIMIZE the number of mass shootings?
Click to expand...


Since you included suicides in your gun violence stats and they are the #1 source of shootings, we are clearly talking about suicides


----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> 31,076? That's a bargain compared to the 765,651 abortion murders in 2010 as reported by the CDC. Are you as concerned about those innocent children too?




No nitwit......You dumb ass right wingers are so predictable......."Innocent children" are NOT being aborted. Stop listening to FOX and get a high school education.


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> Since you included suicides in your gun violence stats and they are the #1 source of shootings, we are clearly talking about suicides




No, nitwit...Did you notice the bolded part of what I cited ??


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> Hey, half-brained....Are we talking about suicides on this thread or are we talking about a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for putting out assault weapons to MAXIMIZE the number of mass shootings?


We're talking about your lies, like your statement, above, and the failed arguments you build upon them.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you included suicides in your gun violence stats and they are the #1 source of shootings, we are clearly talking about suicides
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, nitwit...Did you notice the bolded part of what I cited ??
Click to expand...


Yes, you still included suicides


----------



## nat4900

We seem to "love" gun deaths more than any other so-called civilized countries, don't we, right wingers?


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> [
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest.  The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides.  They just kill themselves other ways



Japan has far more suicides per capita than the USA does.

Gnat, lies as is the nature of the anti-liberty left.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> We seem to "love" gun deaths more than any other so-called civilized countries, don't we, right wingers?


In the US, for every gun used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
Your conclusion:  The US needs more gun control.


----------



## Uncensored2008

SwimExpert said:


> *yawn*
> 
> I suggest you learn it, so that you don't come in here again and try to abuse the notion to fit your idiotic whims.  You are such a dumb sucker.  You've taken the liberal bait, and are up in a hissy believing the media bullshit they want you to believe.



So you will stomp your feet and pound your fists? 

Well, you ARE a lefty....

A suit filed by a party without standing to show a tort by the plaintiff is summarily dismissed.

A prison inmate takes a Colgate Toothbrush and grinds down the handle then stabs another inmate to death.

Does the family of the victim have standing to sue Colgate? Why, or why not?


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> No nitwit......You dumb ass right wingers are so predictable......."Innocent children" are NOT being aborted. Stop listening to FOX and get a high school education.



What crimes are the children you abort convicted of, Comrade Gnat?


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> The peoples right to keep (own) and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> The militia does not have any rights the PEOPLE hold the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
> 
> in March 2007 the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote for the 2-1 majority:
> 
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.



Court precedents can be overridden.  Now that Scalia is being ass raped by demons in Hell, we can get this stupidity overturned pretty quickly.  

Oops, the Militia Amendment is about Militias again...


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peoples right to keep (own) and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> The militia does not have any rights the PEOPLE hold the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
> 
> in March 2007 the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote for the 2-1 majority:
> 
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court precedents can be overridden.  Now that Scalia is being ass raped by demons in Hell, we can get this stupidity overturned pretty quickly.
> 
> Oops, the Militia Amendment is about Militias again...
Click to expand...


So you have no legal precedent to quote that says people do not have a right to own firearms but I have a Federal Appeals court decision that says they do

If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to shit can the second amendment.  But I do encourage you to try


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> How do you know she did not secure the guns? The notes they have from the shooter show he was planning this for about 2 years........do you really think a methodical planner, who was willing to commit murder of children......couldn't have gotten past whatever she did to secure her weapons?



Thank you.  You've just made the point about why she never should have had guns to start with.


----------



## nat4900

Uncensored2008 said:


> Japan has far more suicides per capita than the USA does.
> 
> Gnat, lies as is the nature of the anti-liberty left.




Hey, moron...we are not talking about suicide rates on this thread......

Besides, Japan has long had the Samurai seppuku suicide code at play....AND, countries like Russia, India, South Korea have HIGHER suicide rates than Japan.


----------



## Crixus

Rustic said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She had seven guns........thats it....?  Really....and you nutters think she had an aresenal......I thought, from what you nutters went on and on about, that she had at least 30 or more........
> 
> You guys keep talking out of your asses.........what morons....
> 
> A bolt action .22......a .22 starter pistol.........did you break out into sweats typing that?........get real........you guys need help
> 
> 7 guns......you guys are nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would have a coronary if they saw my collection... LOL
Click to expand...


Mines getting that way.


----------



## nat4900

Uncensored2008 said:


> What crimes are the children you abort convicted of, Comrade Gnat?



Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"......BTW, how many abandoned kids have you adopted?


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> So you have no legal precedent to quote that says people do not have a right to own firearms but I have a Federal Appeals court decision that says they do
> 
> If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to shit can the second amendment. But I do encourage you to try



Again, the Second Amendment is an idea whose time has come and gone.  

Now, in 1787, before we had professional armies and police forces, when hunting was necessary for survival, when you still had roaming bands of Native Americans we hadn't gotten around to genociding yet, the Second Amendment might have been a good idea.  

Does it make sense in 2015?  Not even a little tiny bit.  The thing is, you don't want Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza to have an AR15 any more than I do.  But once you say, "You can't have that", it's no longer a "right", it then becomes a privilege.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Wrong moron....our violent crime rate is going down...as more Americans own and actually carry guns......you are a liar...which is why we do not trust you anti gun morons........nothing you say can be trusted....
> 
> not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....those days are over ...we are going to fight you at each step....moron.



Guy, we had 4 people killed and 38 wounded in Chicago over the weekend.  This comes after your boy Scalia struck down our common sense gun laws.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What crimes are the children you abort convicted of, Comrade Gnat?
> 
> 
> 
> Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"...
Click to expand...

Only a mindless, dishonest, bigoted anti-gun loon would look at the daily 1:16,000,000 ratio of guns used/not used to commit murder and conclude the US needs more gun control.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> We seem to "love" gun deaths more than any other so-called civilized countries, don't we, right wingers?



Where did you find your false statistics?

Six times as many assaults with a firearm than any other means? 

Hint: If your going to lie, keep it in the somewhat rational range,, or it becomes painfully obvious

Crime Statistics

Notice that in legitimate stats, blunt objects are the most prevalent weapon in assault.

It's kewl, you're a democrat, lying defines you.

You want to end civil rights on behalf of your party.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no legal precedent to quote that says people do not have a right to own firearms but I have a Federal Appeals court decision that says they do
> 
> If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to shit can the second amendment. But I do encourage you to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment is an idea whose time has come and gone.
> 
> Now, in 1787, before we had professional armies and police forces, when hunting was necessary for survival, when you still had roaming bands of Native Americans we hadn't gotten around to genociding yet, the Second Amendment might have been a good idea.
> 
> Does it make sense in 2015?  Not even a little tiny bit.  The thing is, you don't want Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza to have an AR15 any more than I do.  But once you say, "You can't have that", it's no longer a "right", it then becomes a privilege.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion

In my opinion the risk is worth it.


----------



## nat4900

*Unintentional firearm death rates in the U.S. and peer countries, 2013*


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"......BTW, how many abandoned kids have you adopted?



Third grade was far beyond the educational achievement of yours... 

Gnat; if a DNA sample is processed from one of your victims, will it come back as ?


dog
turnip
plastic

At 6 weeks gestation, a human baby has 


a functioning heart
a functioning brain
Both heart and brain
Hillary says that they are just blobs and Jews are rodents
Gnat, it's true that you're stupid, and patently evil, but hey, at least you lack anything approaching an education.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peoples right to keep (own) and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> The militia does not have any rights the PEOPLE hold the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
> 
> in March 2007 the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote for the 2-1 majority:
> 
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court precedents can be overridden.  Now that Scalia is being ass raped by demons in Hell, we can get this stupidity overturned pretty quickly.
> 
> Oops, the Militia Amendment is about Militias again...
Click to expand...

Funny how when homosexual marriages(no rights given in the constitution) were decided by the supreme court a liberal didn't call it stupidity, yet when DC protection law(2nd amendment) was decided by the supreme court, as typical of the hypocrites. they call it stupidity.  Joe, you definitely need a time out.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron....our violent crime rate is going down...as more Americans own and actually carry guns......you are a liar...which is why we do not trust you anti gun morons........nothing you say can be trusted....
> 
> not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....those days are over ...we are going to fight you at each step....moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, we had 4 people killed and 38 wounded in Chicago over the weekend.  This comes after your boy Scalia struck down our common sense gun laws.
Click to expand...

Chicago Gun Laws - Gun News


> We all know that guns are the root of all evil, right?  Without guns the world would be such a better place, right?  This type of misguided thinking is what has gotten Chicago to the point it is at today.
> 
> The months of July and August saw 145 people shot in Chicago–many of them fatally.  If I removed the name Chicago from this paragraph, it might sound like I’m quoting stats from Afghanistan or Egypt.  You wouldn’t be surprised.  But I’m talking about a major city in the heartland of America.  This is a sad commentary on the state of crime in Chicago.
> 
> Chicago is the land of Al Capone, Rod Blagojevich, Richard Daley and Barak Obama.  It’s also where the 2nd Amendment has almost ceased to exist.  Only recently has the legislature passed a concealed carry law, and that was because they were forced to because Illinois lost in a federal court of appeals in December of 2012.


  Hey dipshit Joe, did you know that those murders that are going on, are not by law abiding concealed carry permit citizens?  That most of those guns have entered the US illegally along with the drugs?   Why is it that liberal elites can have heavily armed thugs to protect them, but they don't want US to protect US?  Morons, they vote democrat.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Wilbur Right said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I get hit by a drunk driver, you goddamn right I am about to sue Jim Beam and chevy. Their SOLE purposes are to be driven and get drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but it isn't the purpose that they (drinking and driving) be done TOGETHER.
> 
> But let's say I own a gun shop. Right outside of Chicago. And my gun shop sells a LOT of guns. Straw buyers, gang bangers everybody knows where to get guns. And the gun manufacturers know of my reputation and they keep selling me guns.
> 
> Should that be stopped by suing the gun manufacturers?
Click to expand...


Is it the gun manufacturers fault the owner of the gun store is breaking the law?

Local LE should be putting them out of business


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> *Unintentional firearm death rates in the U.S. and peer countries, 2013*


356,000,000 gun in the US
505 accidental firearm-related deaths.
You conclusion:   We need more gun control.


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What crimes are the children you abort convicted of, Comrade Gnat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"......BTW, how many abandoned kids have you adopted?
Click to expand...


Oh right, that's why the hildabitch was all excited about having a grandchild just as soon as she found out her spawn was preggos. Too much Fox news I guess, ROFLMFAO.


----------



## Muhammed

nat4900 said:


> We seem to "love" gun deaths more than any other so-called civilized countries, don't we, right wingers?


Liar.

Why do you jerks constantly forward Hitler's agenda of disarming the public?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron....our violent crime rate is going down...as more Americans own and actually carry guns......you are a liar...which is why we do not trust you anti gun morons........nothing you say can be trusted....
> 
> not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....those days are over ...we are going to fight you at each step....moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, we had 4 people killed and 38 wounded in Chicago over the weekend.  This comes after your boy Scalia struck down our common sense gun laws.
Click to expand...

I would also like to point out who the President of the US has been for the past 7 1/2 years now?  Where is that Hope and Change? The lowering of the oceans and the healing of the planet?   Boy did he pull the wool over your eyes.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick fuck.  No, the primary use of guns is to not kill.  And not be killed.
> 
> Unless you're talking about hunting.  You a vegetarian?  Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?
Click to expand...


Hey Nat, remember this question you ran away from?  Are you a vegetarian?  Or are you a civilized liberal who has other people kill your food for you?


----------



## Staidhup

The issue is not the second amendment nor the ownership of guns, it is and always will be mental health. One can outlaw, confiscate, and legislate all they want and it will never stop the flow of guns into the hands of the unbalanced, terrorist, and or criminal element.
Some claim the time has passed, and what time is that? Police are unable to maintain the safety of its citizens from criminal elements, random gang shootings occur on a daily basis, terrorism is on the increase, and its time has passed? Commit a murder in the US today and you will in most cases plead to a lower charge and be back on the streets in 10 years. Come now its time to get a grip on reality, until such time we execute those engaged in gun violence the trend will continue, and unless you have a way to defend yourself you are begging to become just another statistical victim.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
> If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?



The second amendment says government can't restrict your right to own firearms.  It does not say government has to arm you.  The ridiculousness that is liberalism


----------



## Uncensored2008

Muhammed said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to "love" gun deaths more than any other so-called civilized countries, don't we, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Why do you jerks constantly forward Hitler's agenda of disarming the public?
Click to expand...


In all fairness to Gnat, he is not a follower of Adolf Hitler.

Pol Pot is who Gnat takes after....


----------



## skookerasbil

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no legal precedent to quote that says people do not have a right to own firearms but I have a Federal Appeals court decision that says they do
> 
> If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to shit can the second amendment. But I do encourage you to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment is an idea whose time has come and gone.
> 
> Now, in 1787, before we had professional armies and police forces, when hunting was necessary for survival, when you still had roaming bands of Native Americans we hadn't gotten around to genociding yet, the Second Amendment might have been a good idea.
> 
> Does it make sense in 2015?  Not even a little tiny bit.  The thing is, you don't want Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza to have an AR15 any more than I do.  But once you say, "You can't have that", it's no longer a "right", it then becomes a privilege.
Click to expand...



s0n........well Id say its about time for you to move to Australia or France!! We're talking about the United States of America here........you might have about 274 people who agree with your sentiment. Know what that means? That means politically, the issue is irrelevant. Three out of four Americans is against a handgun ban!! Would you like me to post up the poll???!! . In fact, only a k00k would make a statement THAT much off the reservation. It would be like me saying, "Hamburgers are unhealthy and have outlived their usefulness in the American diet, thus, should be banned.


----------



## ChrisL

2aguy said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  He could have killed those kids with a pump action shotgun, or a handgun........there are millions of people in the country with that and more and they aren't killing people....it isn't the guns or the ammo twit...it is the criminal intent and that is damned rare........
> 
> Again  3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands...and the year of Sandy Hook.....2 were used to commit mass shootings.....
> 
> Whatever kind of anti gun drone you are......I can see you guys are getting frisky thinking hilary will make your gun banning dreams come true.......
Click to expand...


That will never happen.  Too many people realize that all of our rights are precious.  Most people in this country would not go for that.


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What crimes are the children you abort convicted of, Comrade Gnat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"......BTW, how many abandoned kids have you adopted?
Click to expand...


And there it is folks.  The caring liberal qualifying who is worthy of living and dying.  An embryo isn't "human".  You have to ignore the fact that every human lucky enough to escape the liberal's knife started out as an embryo.  Most with names already selected.  So tell me Natalie, what difference does it make to a liberal if a doctor murders a baby in the womb or a criminal murders children in the classroom?  Either way, the murderer saw the person being killed as unworthy of life.  You can't have it both ways.  I realize that you don't want to address the left's culture of death and dehumanization of innocents because it doesn't fit in the worldview you've swallowed, but I don't understand why you piss your pants when a gun was used for the same purpose.  What an absolute fuckstain you are.


----------



## Contumacious

andaronjim said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peoples right to keep (own) and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> The militia does not have any rights the PEOPLE hold the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
> 
> in March 2007 the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote for the 2-1 majority:
> 
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court precedents can be overridden.  Now that Scalia is being ass raped by demons in Hell, we can get this stupidity overturned pretty quickly.
> 
> Oops, the Militia Amendment is about Militias again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how when homosexual marriages(no rights given in the constitution) were decided by the supreme court a liberal didn't call it stupidity, yet when DC protection law(2nd amendment) was decided by the supreme court, as typical of the hypocrites. they call it stupidity.  Joe, you definitely need a time out.
Click to expand...



Americans , who are FREE PEOPLE, have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bears arms to defend their lives and for other lawful purposes

The right is protected PRIMARILY by the Constitution because no authority was conferred upon the federal government to regulate firearms. Since no authority was conferred  then the right is also protected by the NINTH AMENDMENT. Our right to bear was was EMPHASIZED by the SECOND AMENDMENT.


This distinction is important because the scumbags are acting as if the 2A allows fedgov to regulate firearms - it doesn't. It is also not true that the COMMERCE CLAUSE allows fedgov the authority  to criminalize the possession of firearms in certain cases. It doesn't. SCOTUS rulings to that effect are bald face USURPATIONS and must be ignored.

As free people Americans also have a Constitutional (1787) right protected by the main document and the NINTH AMENDMENT to pursue happiness . Therefore  adults can consensually agree to get fucked in the ass. To each his own.

We don't want them infringing on our rights so lets not infringe on theirs.


.


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> Hey Nat, remember this question you ran away from? Are you a vegetarian? Or are you a civilized liberal who has other people kill your food for you?




Thanks for asking and caring....I've been a vegetarian for over 40 years......
(Now, go on and write a bunch of moronic posts about "vegetables have feelings too")


----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> So tell me Natalie





I always find it funny, when right wing imbeciles "assume" that I'm a woman because of my progressive values...
Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> I always find it funny, when right wing imbeciles "assume" that I'm a woman because of my progressive values...
> Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.


Nor a hint of truth to support your positions.


----------



## Valerie

kwc57 said:


> You have to ignore the fact that every human lucky enough *to escape the liberal's knife* started out as an embryo.




is there a Godwin's Law type term for threads that devolve to abortion..? 

if not, there ought to be...

also should be a word for the lame posters who inevitably take just about every topic there. 

BTW are you actually claiming republicans don't abort pregnancies..?


----------



## nat4900

M14 Shooter said:


> Nor a hint of truth to support your positions.




Ask me if I care what you think, dimwit.....LOL


----------



## nat4900

Valerie said:


> BTW are you actually claiming republicans don't abort pregnancies..?




....and, of course, all right wingers on here have adopted dozen of kids from mothers who wanted an abortion, because...well, because they "care"....and when these kids are older, they want to send them to Iraq....LOL


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.



That's funny. None of the male gun owners on the board need guns to prove their manhood either, but they need them for self defense. You fail to grasp that concept. Self defense. Not that they want to kill anyone, but they will if push comes to shove.  

When someone has a gun held to your head in a robbery, citing gun law, or threatening to sue the manufacturer of the weapon he's holding against your head will not stop him from blowing your brains out.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor a hint of truth to support your positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask me if I care what you think, dimwit.....LOL
Click to expand...


Obviously you do, or you wouldn't be asking him to ask you if you care what he thinks.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor a hint of truth to support your positions.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask me if I care what you think, dimwit.....LOL
Click to expand...

It does not surprise me that you do not care if someone takes you to task for supporting your positions with nothing but willful ignorance and lies.


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> That's funny. None of the male gun owners on the board need guns to prove their manhood either, but they need them for self defense. You fail to grasp that concept. Self defense.




Tell the truth.....You also sleep under your bed clutching your guns......just in case....LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW are you actually claiming republicans don't abort pregnancies..?
> 
> 
> 
> ....and, of course, all right wingers on here have adopted dozen of kids from mothers who wanted an abortion, because...well, because they "care"....and when these kids are older, they want to send them to Iraq....LOL
Click to expand...

More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.


----------



## nat4900

M14 Shooter said:


> It does not surprise me that you do not care if someone takes you to task for supporting your positions with nothing *but willful ignorance and lies*.




Fine......just a few questions:

True or False about the U.S. having more guns than actual people.
True or False about the U.S. having more gun deaths than any industrialized country
True or False about U.S. gun manufacturers having the ONLY law to protect them from being sued
True or False about the U.S. having more people in prison over murder and homicide charges
True or False about the U.S. having more children killed by guns than anywhere else on this planet.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me Natalie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it funny, when right wing imbeciles "assume" that I'm a woman because of my progressive values...
> Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.
Click to expand...


And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues.  Shooting is a sport ya know.


----------



## nat4900

Soggy in NOLA said:


> And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues. *Shooting is a sport ya know*.



Well, that guy...Lanza....at Sandy Hook certainly showed how "sporting" he was, don't you think?


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> Tell the truth.....You also sleep under your bed clutching your guns......just in case....LOL



And you look under your bed, not for monsters, but for gun owners at night.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not surprise me that you do not care if someone takes you to task for supporting your positions with nothing *but willful ignorance and lies*.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine......just a few questions:
Click to expand...

Sorry, junior...  it's not up to me to make your points for you.
Now, tell us again about how the 1/16,000,000 guns used/not used to commit murder ratio indicates we need more gun control.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues. *Shooting is a sport ya know*.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that guy...Lanza....at Sandy Hook certainly showed how "sporting" he was, don't you think?
Click to expand...


Lanza murdered his mother and stole her guns so he could go into a gun-free zone and shoot up defenseless people
Your conclusion:   This is proof we need to make it harder for the law abiding to get guns.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> True or False about the U.S. having more guns than actual people.



False. There are around 100 million gun owners, registered gun owners. The population of the U.S. is 318.9 million. 



nat4900 said:


> True or False about the U.S. having more gun deaths than any industrialized country



False. Honduras has a rate of 67.18 gun deaths per 100,000 population. The U.S has 10.54 gun deaths per 100,000 population. Those figures all include homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths related to firearms.



nat4900 said:


> True or False about U.S. gun manufacturers having the ONLY law to protect them from being sued



True. Congress passed a law in 2005 protecting gun manufacturers from liability should one of their weapons be used in the commission of murder and the like. 



nat4900 said:


> True or False about the U.S. having more people in prison over murder and homicide charges


 
True in the fact there are more people incarcerated for murder/homicide, false in the fact that not all of them are committed with a gun. 



nat4900 said:


> True or False about the U.S. having more children killed by guns than anywhere else on this planet.



True. But how many law abiding gun owners do you see out there hunting children for sport?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Nat, you are a very insecure individual, what you can't debate a post, you press the funny button instead. Coward. Almost all of your threads are appeals to emotion, not appeals to fact.


----------



## M14 Shooter

TemplarKormac said:


> Nat, you are a very insecure individual, what you can't debate a post, you press the funny button instead. Coward. Almost all of your threads are appeals to emotion, not appeals to fact.


And those that are not are outright lies.
But then, that's what we expect of anti-gun loons.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Wilbur Right said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what law-abiding is?? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gang banger wannabe has broken what laws rusty. LOL
> 
> 
> Besides that, every gun owner out there has broken a law. What does that mean rusty?
> 
> Do you want to slide down that slope or not?
Click to expand...





Wilbur Right said:


> Besides that, every gun owner out there has broken a law.



What law have I broken that would prevent me from owning a firearm?

speeding?


----------



## Leweman

Should liberals be held responsible for creating an environment were life doesn't matter and individuals aren't responsible for their actions and no one is disciplined for anything before it's too late?  Mass shootings are due to that philosophy.  Sue away.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

M14 Shooter said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we find it funny when leftwing imbeciles incorrectly assume people are into guns due to "manhood" issues. *Shooting is a sport ya know*.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that guy...Lanza....at Sandy Hook certainly showed how "sporting" he was, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lanza murdered his mother and stole her guns so he could go into a gun-free zone and shoot up defenseless people
> Your conclusion:   This is proof we need to make it harder for the law abiding to get guns.
Click to expand...


Lanza was a nut.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Leweman said:


> Should liberals be held responsible for creating an environment were life doesn't matter and individuals aren't responsible for their actions and no one is disciplined for anything before it's too late?  Mass shootings are due to that philosophy.  Sue away.



Good point, I made a similar point in another thread.  Some here immediately dismiss the mindset that does this shit and then attack the methodology of the crime.

Sorry, I'm more interested at what is going on out there that people do this crazy shit.


----------



## SwimExpert

Uncensored2008 said:


> A suit filed by a party without standing to show a tort by the plaintiff is summarily dismissed.



Close, but not quite.  A lack of standing is grounds for dismissal upon motion by a defendant.  Summary judgement is something different.  That's a motion that asks for judgement on legal grounds when there is no material fact in dispute between the parties.

In any event, this was not hearing on a motion for dismissal for lack of standing.  Nor was it a hearing for a motion for summary judgement.  So like I said....get an education so that you don't have any more accidental abuses of ideas that you don't actually understand how to apply.  Neither standing nor summary judgement were questions in this particular hearing.


----------



## Hugo Furst

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 31,076? That's a bargain compared to the 765,651 abortion murders in 2010 as reported by the CDC. Are you as concerned about those innocent children too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nitwit......You dumb ass right wingers are so predictable......."Innocent children" are NOT being aborted. Stop listening to FOX and get a high school education.
Click to expand...




nat4900 said:


> ......."Innocent children" are NOT being aborted



they're not innocent?

What crime did they commit?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"......BTW, how many abandoned kids have you adopted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third grade was far beyond the educational achievement of yours...
> 
> Gnat; if a DNA sample is processed from one of your victims, will it come back as ?
> 
> 
> dog
> turnip
> plastic
> 
> At 6 weeks gestation, a human baby has
> 
> 
> a functioning heart
> a functioning brain
> Both heart and brain
> Hillary says that they are just blobs and Jews are rodents
> Gnat, it's true that you're stupid, and patently evil, but hey, at least you lack anything approaching an education.
Click to expand...


gnat

perfect nickname


----------



## CowboyTed

nat4900 said:


> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i



nat, 
I would be sympathetic to your argument but I believe it should be more like a car, you want one insure it... It is about personal responsibility... You take responsibility for the gun until you report it stolen... 

Look at Sandy Hook situation, this woman had a small arsenal in her basement... No lock or gun safe with a son who was very mentally unstable...

Simple insurance would at least forced the woman to have proper security or pay very large premiums...

She paid with her life but her gross negligence cost so many more... Insurance company would pay out in this case...

What's wrong with that... Government just regulate the insurance business like they do today... Have a gun you need the right insurance(gun size, CCC, training...), your choice, your price. Government can keep away from any intrusive regulation.

What you think?


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???
> 
> 
> In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths *each day* and more than three deaths *each hour*.
> 
> 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
> 
> Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.
> 
> Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
> 
> I*n the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.*
> 
> Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries


Only a blithering idiot would put homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings all in one category. Dumbfuck
Lol


----------



## Rustic

CowboyTed said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat,
> I would be sympathetic to your argument but I believe it should be more like a car, you want one insure it... It is about personal responsibility... You take responsibility for the gun until you report it stolen...
> 
> Look at Sandy Hook situation, this woman had a small arsenal in her basement... No lock or gun safe with a son who was very mentally unstable...
> 
> Simple insurance would at least forced the woman to have proper security or pay very large premiums...
> 
> She paid with her life but her gross negligence cost so many more... Insurance company would pay out in this case...
> 
> What's wrong with that... Government just regulate the insurance business like they do today... Have a gun you need the right insurance(gun size, CCC, training...), your choice, your price. Government can keep away from any intrusive regulation.
> 
> What you think?
Click to expand...

She had a small collection you dumb fuck, and there were no military grade firearms in that collection, assholes… LOL
...we already have enough legalized extortion by the federal government in this country.


----------



## Rustic

Rustic said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat,
> I would be sympathetic to your argument but I believe it should be more like a car, you want one insure it... It is about personal responsibility... You take responsibility for the gun until you report it stolen...
> 
> Look at Sandy Hook situation, this woman had a small arsenal in her basement... No lock or gun safe with a son who was very mentally unstable...
> 
> Simple insurance would at least forced the woman to have proper security or pay very large premiums...
> 
> She paid with her life but her gross negligence cost so many more... Insurance company would pay out in this case...
> 
> What's wrong with that... Government just regulate the insurance business like they do today... Have a gun you need the right insurance(gun size, CCC, training...), your choice, your price. Government can keep away from any intrusive regulation.
> 
> What you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She had a small collection you dumb fuck, and there were no military grade firearms in that collection, assholes… LOL
Click to expand...




nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you just said you don't like stats. Let me repeat it for you:
> 
> "The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, half-brained....Are we talking about suicides on this thread or are we talking about a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for putting out assault weapons to MAXIMIZE the number of mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Bleeding heart get your terms straight dumb fuck, they're sporting weapons - that's what they are is a sporting weapons...


----------



## Crixus

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  He could have killed those kids with a pump action shotgun, or a handgun........there are millions of people in the country with that and more and they aren't killing people....it isn't the guns or the ammo twit...it is the criminal intent and that is damned rare........
> 
> Again  3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands...and the year of Sandy Hook.....2 were used to commit mass shootings.....
> 
> Whatever kind of anti gun drone you are......I can see you guys are getting frisky thinking hilary will make your gun banning dreams come true.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will never happen.  Too many people realize that all of our rights are precious.  Most people in this country would not go for that.
Click to expand...


Honestly,  the more I hear some folks, I dint know that they don't know what to believe unless it's tweeted to them.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> We seem to "love" gun deaths more than any other so-called civilized countries, don't we, right wingers?


Puting suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings all in one category is lying... Looks like you have algores type math, must be stuck in the lock box your common sense that is... Lol


----------



## auditor0007

Just_Me said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. Give us one such society, and I'll educate you on how a black market works, because you can't regulate them with gun laws. People will still get guns regardless.
> 
> You can keep repeating that tired talking point, but doing so doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan is an island bone head.. And the murder rate is up in Japan not down.
Click to expand...


I guess there are no murders on islands, lmao.  That has to be the dumbest statement I've ever seen.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What crimes are the children you abort convicted of, Comrade Gnat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only fucked up, FOX watchers would call an aborted embryo "children"......BTW, how many abandoned kids have you adopted?
Click to expand...

What would you call them?? A crocodile....
Lol


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> *Unintentional firearm death rates in the U.S. and peer countries, 2013*


More laws will not change that you dumb fuck, it will just make it worse, of course you have no common sense so you can't realize that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> I always find it funny, when right wing imbeciles "assume" that I'm a woman because of my progressive values...
> Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.



I assume you are a nematocera, a gnat...


----------



## Uncensored2008

M14 Shooter said:


> Nor a hint of truth to support your positions.



It's not his fault; Gnat has to lie.

I mean, who would support his fucked up attacks on civil rights if they just go by the facts?


----------



## Rustic

The liberal progressive fucked up media dictate what stories are showing which ones are not... Bleeding hearts are a bunch of sheep believe anything they see on bias media,,, lol


----------



## Uncensored2008

Valerie said:


> is there a Godwin's Law type term for threads that devolve to abortion..?
> 
> if not, there ought to be...
> 
> also should be a word for the lame posters who inevitably take just about every topic there.
> 
> BTW are you actually claiming republicans don't abort pregnancies..?



Is there a Godwin's law type term for when socks infest a thread, Ravi?


----------



## Valerie

_“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.” _

Hillary, AUGUST 27, 2015


Hillary Clinton on gun violence prevention

While *gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities*, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. That is unacceptable. It is a rebuke to this nation we love.

That’s why Hillary supports *sensible action to address gun violence*, including comprehensive background checks, cracking down on illegal gun traffickers, holding dealers and manufacturers accountable when they endanger Americans, and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers.

*Read this:* _Why Mark & I are supporting Hillary Clinton for president_, by Gabby Giffords

*Hillary has a record of advocating for commonsense approaches to reduce gun violence:*


As first lady, she co-convened a White House Summit on School Violence after the Columbine tragedy. She also strongly defended the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks on some gun sales.


As senator, she co-sponsored and voted for legislation to close the gun show loophole by requiring criminal background checks on all transactions taking place at events that sell firearms.


She voted against the dangerous immunity protections Congress provided gun dealers and manufacturers that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable.


She also co-sponsored and voted for legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban.
*As president, Hillary will increase the number of gun sales subject to background checks:*


*Comprehensive federal background check legislation.* Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.


*Closing the “Charleston Loophole.”* Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.


*Tightening the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t.* If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales.
*To ensure that the safety of our communities is prioritized over the profits of the gun lobby, Hillary will also:*


*Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection.* Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.


*Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers.* Hillary believes we must do more to crack down on gun stores that flood our communities with illegal guns. As president, she will provide funding to increase inspections and aggressively enforce current law by revoking the licenses of dealers that knowingly supply straw purchasers and traffickers.
*Hillary will fight to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill:*


*Support legislation to stop domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns.* Although federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns, this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Hillary will fight for legislation to prohibit all of these domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns.


*Make straw purchasing a federal crime.* When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felon—only so that felon can avoid a background check—it should be a crime. Hillary will fight to make so-called “straw purchasing” a federal crime.


*Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns.* Hillary will fight to improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns.


*Keep military-style weapons off our streets.* Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.


----------



## Kosh

Well if this allowed then we should be able to sue the unions that build cars, buildings, etc.

How many on the far left will be willing to allow unions to be sued?


----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


> _“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.” _
> 
> Hillary, AUGUST 27, 2015
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton on gun violence prevention
> 
> While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. That is unacceptable. It is a rebuke to this nation we love.
> 
> That’s why Hillary supports sensible action to address gun violence, including comprehensive background checks, cracking down on illegal gun traffickers, holding dealers and manufacturers accountable when they endanger Americans, and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers.
> 
> *Read this:* _Why Mark & I are supporting Hillary Clinton for president_, by Gabby Giffords
> 
> *Hillary has a record of advocating for commonsense approaches to reduce gun violence:*
> 
> 
> As first lady, she co-convened a White House Summit on School Violence after the Columbine tragedy. She also strongly defended the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks on some gun sales.
> 
> 
> As senator, she co-sponsored and voted for legislation to close the gun show loophole by requiring criminal background checks on all transactions taking place at events that sell firearms.
> 
> 
> She voted against the dangerous immunity protections Congress provided gun dealers and manufacturers that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable.
> 
> 
> She also co-sponsored and voted for legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban.
> *As president, Hillary will increase the number of gun sales subject to background checks:*
> 
> 
> *Comprehensive federal background check legislation.* Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.
> 
> 
> *Closing the “Charleston Loophole.”* Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.
> 
> 
> *Tightening the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t.* If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales.
> *To ensure that the safety of our communities is prioritized over the profits of the gun lobby, Hillary will also:*
> 
> 
> *Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection.* Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.
> 
> 
> *Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers.* Hillary believes we must do more to crack down on gun stores that flood our communities with illegal guns. As president, she will provide funding to increase inspections and aggressively enforce current law by revoking the licenses of dealers that knowingly supply straw purchasers and traffickers.
> *Hillary will fight to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill:*
> 
> 
> *Support legislation to stop domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns.* Although federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns, this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Hillary will fight for legislation to prohibit all of these domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns.
> 
> 
> *Make straw purchasing a federal crime.* When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felon—only so that felon can avoid a background check—it should be a crime. Hillary will fight to make so-called “straw purchasing” a federal crime.
> 
> 
> *Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns.* Hillary will fight to improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns.
> 
> 
> *Keep military-style weapons off our streets.* Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.


----------



## Valerie




----------



## Rustic

Valerie said:


>


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Valerie




----------



## Valerie




----------



## turtledude

Crixus said:


> [
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?


few firearms are easier to obtain than a 22 Bolt action rifle.  I have the CMP version of that gun and I use it to train for service rifle and TNC competitions.  Not exactly a firearm most people see as a weapon and a gun that even many Banoids would (at least publicly at this point) say are appropriate firearms for most people to own.  My son bought one (with a check) right after he turned 18.  They are commonly available at flea markets, swap meets etc.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## turtledude

Valerie said:


>




I don't recall the bill of rights saying anything about abortion, sodomy or reproductive rights.  Those "rights" were protected under the unenumerated catch all provisions of the 9th amendment.  But guess what?  if the 9th amendment protects sodomy and abortion, than certainly it also protects my firearms rights which the founders constantly showed approval for.

BTW I worked for PP and I support LGBT rights, gay marriage and abortion.  Unlike you, I don't oppose rights just because the idiots who vote for Hillary or Goofy Bernie cherish those rights


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> [
> Again, there's no constitutional right to weapon ownership.  Sorry, I know you want to think there is, but there isn't.
> 
> Scalia's taking a dirt nap, and your bizarro interpretation of the MILITIA AMENDMENT is done.



You're pretty much seen as a moron on this issue.  there is the enumerated right to keep and bear arms and there is the 9th amendment which will be the new frontier for the pro freedom movement. Plus scholars are starting to  push back on the idiotic expansion of the commerce clause that FDR and his pet monkeys foisted on us. Now some marxist states will continue to make their regimes a Criminal friendly work area but federally, the jihad against gun rights is dying.  and I hope if you live in a Banoid state, you are the one breaking down doors trying to seize guns, not some rookie cop who is merely following orders


----------



## turtledude

amrchaos said:


> There is a case where a Gun maker can be sued!
> 
> That is if the weapon in question is intended for illegal use.
> Good luck trying to prove that one.



gonna be hard given how many AR 15 rifles are issued to CIVILIAN police departments and a similar weapon-the MI Carbine was sold by our GOVERNMENT (Dept of Civilian Marksmanship) to OVER A MILLION US CITIZENS


----------



## turtledude

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.



This is the kind of crap we see from someone who has spent to much time in the land of fruits and Nuts, Pelosi and Boxer.


----------



## Crixus

*"Comprehensive federal background check legislation.* Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success."

Brady bill hasn't managed to stop crime with guns. And it surely did not stop her friend Eric Holder from selling guns to criminals did it? Nothing but a consession to a guy stuck in a week chair.

"
*Make straw purchasing a federal crime.* When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felon—only so that felon can avoid a background check—it should be a crime. Hillary will fight to make so-called “straw purchasing” a federal crime."

Straw purchases are al ready and always have been a crime punishible by 10 years in prison. 

*"Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns.* Hillary will fight to improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns."

What does involuntary mean? Judging by all the bums I see in houston wondering around muttering, I don't think they do that any more.


*"Keep military-style weapons off our streets.* Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban."
Reinstate the assault weapons ban? You should be offended by such a useless shiny thing. Removing a flash hider, a little metal nub, a collapsible stock, and 20 rounds out of a magazine were proven to do nothing to reduce crime. Nothing. What did work was when her husband had the hood rats who insist on shooting each other in prision. What ever happened to keeping it simple?


----------



## turtledude

Rustic said:


> [
> Joel spends too much time in his mother's basement to know the difference…



I think you mean dressing closet!


----------



## Crixus

Wha


turtledude said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a case where a Gun maker can be sued!
> 
> That is if the weapon in question is intended for illegal use.
> Good luck trying to prove that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gonna be hard given how many AR 15 rifles are issued to CIVILIAN police departments and a similar weapon-the MI Carbine was sold by our GOVERNMENT (Dept of Civilian Marksmanship) to OVER A MILLION US CITIZENS[/QUOT
> 
> The bright side of the crime bill coming back ? My Bushmaster and 10 thirty round magazines will be worth a crap ton of money.
Click to expand...


----------



## turtledude

Rustic said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She had seven guns........thats it....?  Really....and you nutters think she had an aresenal......I thought, from what you nutters went on and on about, that she had at least 30 or more........
> 
> You guys keep talking out of your asses.........what morons....
> 
> A bolt action .22......a .22 starter pistol.........did you break out into sweats typing that?........get real........you guys need help
> 
> 7 guns......you guys are nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would have a coronary if they saw my collection... LOL
Click to expand...

Me too, I have at least 15 shotguns for just different competitive clay events

three for NSSA skeet
Two for ISU Skeet (the good stuff-K-80_
Three for ISU Trap 
Two for ATA trap
5 for NSCA clays 

For Pistol

Three "Bowling Pin" autos
Three PPC revolvers
Two USPSA Open Race guns
Three USPSA "Limited division" autos
Six USPSA "stock division" autos
Three "steel challenge" revolvers (8shot SWs)

that's just a small sampling


----------



## turtledude

Valerie said:


> _Gun companies do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.
> 
> To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years*. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.*
> 
> 
> Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."
> 
> 
> In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.
> 
> 
> In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it._
> 
> _FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
> 
> 15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes
> 
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm_




well if the courts would actually destroy the idiots who file those politically driven suits against the gun makers, then we wouldn't need it.

Sanders was proper in his vote.


----------



## turtledude

Crixus said:


> Wha




say what or are you crying?


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
Click to expand...


in some cases that is proper

why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public has legal protections. Guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, STUPID !!!!! For 2 reasons:
> 
> One, morons like you STILL think that government (especially with a black president) is after your sorry hide and you will fight them off from your bedroom.......and
> 
> Two, do you really think that your freakin assault rifle is preventing government from  placing you in that dreaded "relocation" camp?????
> 
> MORON !!!!!
Click to expand...


Lets THINK this through  (this is a hypothetical so  no need for you to put on your rubber panties and adult diapers)

You are the governor of say the peoples collective of NY. You start a program saying all NRA members must report to reeducation centers.  100 NRA members with bolt action rifles decide they are going to "terminate your tenure in office" with extreme prejudice after you declare martial law.

Question-what is your expected life span"


and after some patriot does a Randall Murphy on your head with a 180 grain "core loc" projectile doing 2850 FPS, what do you think the guy who takes your office is going to think?


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Nat, remember this question you ran away from? Are you a vegetarian? Or are you a civilized liberal who has other people kill your food for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for asking and caring....I've been a vegetarian for over 40 years......
> (Now, go on and write a bunch of moronic posts about "vegetables have feelings too")
Click to expand...


Nope, I'm a vegetarian too.  Primarily because I hate vegetables, the little fucking bastards.  I don't hate the way they taste, I just hate them.  So I eat them.

I give you credit on this one.  Most liberals who talk about guns are for killing aren't vegetarians.  Don't get a big head though, everything else you say is still whacked ...


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what an so called "assault rifle" is?? Dumbass
> The "AR" in ar15 does not mean Assault rifle... Of course if your head was out of your ass you would know that…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you get an erection when you "correct" people that AR does not mean "assault rifle".....(yeah, yeah, ArmaLite was the original manufacturer)......
Click to expand...



Hey moron, the term "assault" is a term that means soldiers attacking a fixed and defended position by using SELECT FIRE (that means fully automatic to the luddites) to pin down the defenders so other members of the assaulting forces can get close enough to take out the fixed position with a satchel charge, a flamethrower or a bazooka.  Since semi auto rifles do not have full automatic fire capabilities, they are not suitable for such a military task

Banoid assholes call them "assault weapons" so that weak minded panty wetting wimps will think those firearms are made for "criminal assault"


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the AR15 is a "sporting rifle" if you want to either have instant deer ground meat, OR kill as many people as possible just for "sport"......
Click to expand...

what stupidity.  do you know why so many people own these rifles?

1) because they were trained on similar weapons in the  military

2) because parts and service are easily available

3) ammo is cheaper due to military surplus

4) most police departments use them

given less than TWO PERCENT of all mURDERS involve ALL rifles, your claim is just coming out of your colon


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Fine......just a few questions:
> 
> True or False about the U.S. having more guns than actual people.



Not known, but probably false.



> True or False about the U.S. having more gun deaths than any industrialized country



True, but less knife and blunt object murders than most.



> True or False about U.S. gun manufacturers having the ONLY law to protect them from being sued



False, a complete and utter lie.



> True or False about the U.S. having more people in prison over murder and homicide charges



False



> True or False about the U.S. having more children killed by guns than anywhere else on this planet.



False, a complete and utter lie


----------



## Centinel

nat4900 said:


> We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.



You should change your ways and choose peace.


----------



## Centinel

nat4900 said:


> We seem to "love" gun deaths more than any other so-called civilized countries, don't we, right wingers?


It's weird that you love gun deaths. You should seek psychiatric treatment.


----------



## Uncensored2008

SwimExpert said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A suit filed by a party without standing to show a tort by the plaintiff is summarily dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close, but not quite.  A lack of standing is grounds for dismissal upon motion by a defendant.  Summary judgement is something different.  That's a motion that asks for judgement on legal grounds when there is no material fact in dispute between the parties.
> 
> In any event, this was not hearing on a motion for dismissal for lack of standing.  Nor was it a hearing for a motion for summary judgement.  So like I said....get an education so that you don't have any more accidental abuses of ideas that you don't actually understand how to apply.  Neither standing nor summary judgement were questions in this particular hearing.
Click to expand...


Well alrighty then sparky..


Motion to Dismiss Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gnat, where did you fly off to?

I want to hear about how auto manufacturers are no protected from suits when people die in crashes?

Gnat, you lied: True or False about U.S. gun manufacturers having the ONLY law to protect them from being sued

So tell us how GM can be sued by the survivors of a hit and run by a Blazer? Come on Gnat, don't run from your filthy lies!


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> False. There are around 100 million gun owners, registered gun owners. The population of the U.S. is 318.9 million.




No, dimwit.......Many of those gun owners have way more than just one weapon...Reading comprehension issues?


----------



## nat4900

TemplarKormac said:


> False. Honduras has a rate of 67.18 gun deaths per 100,000 population. The U.S has 10.54 gun deaths per 100,000 population. Those figures all include homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths related to firearms




Sorry, I did NOT know that Honduras has recently joined the "industrialized"  fraternity....LOL


----------



## 2aguy

CowboyTed said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you right wingers and gun rights proponents are missing the point.....either purposefully or by stupidity. At Sandy Hook, first graders were not "just killed" but torn into pieces by a maniac with a gun intended to be used in military combat..Such guns should NOT be sold to common citizens. The only purpose to sell such guns are either to kill as many people in the shortest number of minutes....OR to satisfy the "machismo" of morons.i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat,
> I would be sympathetic to your argument but I believe it should be more like a car, you want one insure it... It is about personal responsibility... You take responsibility for the gun until you report it stolen...
> 
> Look at Sandy Hook situation, this woman had a small arsenal in her basement... No lock or gun safe with a son who was very mentally unstable...
> 
> Simple insurance would at least forced the woman to have proper security or pay very large premiums...
> 
> She paid with her life but her gross negligence cost so many more... Insurance company would pay out in this case...
> 
> What's wrong with that... Government just regulate the insurance business like they do today... Have a gun you need the right insurance(gun size, CCC, training...), your choice, your price. Government can keep away from any intrusive regulation.
> 
> What you think?
Click to expand...




She did not have an arsenal...she had 7 guns......that even earn the name "Collection"...and at least two of them were .22, a bolt action rifle and a pistol......

Any attempt to mandate insurance would be unconstitutional...it would be the same thing as when the democrats placed a poll tax and literacy tests on the right to vote, in order to prevent blacks from voting.


It would violate the 14th Amendment......you can't mandate fees that keep the poor from exercising a right....

Please.......tell us the link where it said the guns were unsecured.........you know he was planning this for about 2 years...so any lock or safe she might have had wasn't going to stop him...right?


----------



## 2aguy

turtledude said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would know an "ar" is not a military grade weapon? It's just a sporting rifle...
> Get your out of your ass and educate yourself... Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the AR15 is a "sporting rifle" if you want to either have instant deer ground meat, OR kill as many people as possible just for "sport"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what stupidity.  do you know why so many people own these rifles?
> 
> 1) because they were trained on similar weapons in the  military
> 
> 2) because parts and service are easily available
> 
> 3) ammo is cheaper due to military surplus
> 
> 4) most police departments use them
> 
> given less than TWO PERCENT of all mURDERS involve ALL rifles, your claim is just coming out of your colon
Click to expand...



Let me repeat some of that in English for him.....

"out of your colon" What Turtledude actually said was....you are speaking out of your ass.......and not in a funny way like Jim Carrey........


----------



## 2aguy

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine......just a few questions:
> 
> True or False about the U.S. having more guns than actual people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not known, but probably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True or False about the U.S. having more gun deaths than any industrialized country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but less knife and blunt object murders than most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True or False about U.S. gun manufacturers having the ONLY law to protect them from being sued
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, a complete and utter lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True or False about the U.S. having more people in prison over murder and homicide charges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True or False about the U.S. having more children killed by guns than anywhere else on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, a complete and utter lie
Click to expand...


I am addressing the guy you addressed....I didn't want to have to find his original post......this is directed at the gun grabbing ninny....r


You realize that more children are killed by guns in countries where law abiding citizens cannot legally own guns.....right..?

Accidental gun deaths of children in U.S. in2013....69

Gun murder of children in 2013....129

Other methods of murder of children...over 700


----------



## Little-Acorn

BluesLegend said:


> Is there a single manufacturing industry in the USA that libtards are not trying to destroy?


Government. They live for it, and are always trying to make it bigger and stronger.

Oops, you said "manufacturing" industry. Sorry. Government creates nothing but punishment and restrictions.

My bad.


----------



## 2aguy

Some perspective on kids and death by guns....from 2013....the actual stats from the CDC...

In 2013 there were over 320,000,000 guns in private hands......

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Kids murdered by guns....

under 1:    12
age 1-4:    39

age 5-14:  142

*total gun murder of children.....193*



Kids murdered by other means...

under 1:    270
age 1-4:    298
age 5-14:  135



*murder of children by other means.....703*
Now, if even if you include gun accidents into the total.....

you are still wrong....

Accidental death by gun for children....

under 1:    3
age 1-4:    27
age 5-14:  39

*Total accidental gun death for kids 2013....69

How many kids in America in 2010......74.2 million.......*


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crixus said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.
> 
> She liked to hunt. HOW THE HELL IS SHE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FUCKED UP KID?..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
Click to expand...


Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?

Where did he get the gun to shoot her?  He stole the key, Mensa Boy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

turtledude said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.  she had no warning he was going to commit capital murder.  He had not been adjudicated mentally incompetent nor did he have a criminal record nor was he a fugitive or under indictment
Click to expand...


And he was her son.  Do we comprehend at ALL how hard it is for a mother to believe that her own son is going to kill her?  Not saying it's not possible; just saying it takes a LOT to come to that conclusion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crixus said:


> Or not being able to get a gun for that matter. One thing I read said Lanza was intrested in mass shootings an such. No guns ? Maybe he makes a bomb. Who knows.



Could be.  He was fascinated with Columbine, and the Columbine killers DID have explosives as well as guns.


----------



## Steven_R

turtledude said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some cases that is proper
> 
> why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s
Click to expand...


1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
2) The police aren't military.
3) The police need military firepower.


----------



## turtledude

Steven_R said:


> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.




any firearms our civilian police use is stuff other civilians ought to be able to own freely


----------



## nat4900

WillHaftawaite said:


> gnat
> 
> perfect nickname




Yes, I actually like it.....buzzing in your hairy ears and kicking RWers' arses.


----------



## Hugo Furst

nat4900 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> gnat
> 
> perfect nickname
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I actually like it.....buzzing in your hairy ears and kicking RWers' arses.
Click to expand...


which ass have you kicked gnat?

Other than your own


----------



## nat4900

CowboyTed said:


> nat,
> I would be sympathetic to your argument but I believe it should be more like a car, you want one insure it... It is about personal responsibility... You take responsibility for the gun until you report it stolen...
> 
> Look at Sandy Hook situation, this woman had a small arsenal in her basement... No lock or gun safe with a son who was very mentally unstable...
> 
> Simple insurance would at least forced the woman to have proper security or pay very large premiums...
> 
> She paid with her life but her gross negligence cost so many more... Insurance company would pay out in this case...
> 
> What's wrong with that... Government just regulate the insurance business like they do today... Have a gun you need the right insurance(gun size, CCC, training...), your choice, your price. Government can keep away from any intrusive regulation.
> 
> What you think?




Excellent point regarding needed insurance....But of course, the majority of posters on this thread alone will bitch and moan that its yet another MANDATE.....


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> [
> Yes, I actually like it.....buzzing in your hairy ears and kicking RWers' arses.



got to lay off those shrooms.  you haven't kicked anyone's ass other than your own.  People like you are cowards


----------



## nat4900

turtledude said:


> People like you are cowards




Yes, using your fucked up "logic"....being against assault weapons that kill indiscriminately makes me a "coward" in your screwed up half brain.....Go massage your "weapon"


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are cowards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, using your fucked up "logic"....being against assault weapons that kill indiscriminately makes me a "coward" in your screwed up half brain.....Go massage your "weapon"
Click to expand...


listen moron.  assault weapons are rarely used in murders.  Less than two percent of all homicides involve the class of firearms that "assault weapons" are a sub part of. Hammers and knives, fists and baseball bats are used in more murders than the style of firearms that cause you to void in your panties.

so you are both a moron and a liar.  You hear the word "assault weapon" and your bladder fails.  because you are ignorant of firearms, and a leftwing idiot who hates the NRA and its support of conservative candidates.  That is what motivates your stupidity


----------



## Hugo Furst

I own an AR-15, 223
I own a Glock 23, .40
I own an S&W carbine .22

Which is an assault weapon


----------



## nat4900

turtledude said:


> and after some patriot does a Randall Murphy on your head with a 180 grain "core loc" projectile doing 2850 FPS, what do you think the guy who takes your office is going to think?




Come on admit it.....you got an erection just typing all those "2850 FPS" bullshit.......LOL


----------



## turtledude

BTW why didn't Valerie and GnatIQ49 vote on this issue?


----------



## turtledude

WillHaftawaite said:


> I own an AR-15, 223
> I own a Glock 23, .40
> I own an S&W carbine .22
> 
> Which is an assault weapon




that's all?  I own more than a dozen AR 15s including some really nice 3G race guns (STI, Stag and RRA) three National match versions (Two Colts, one RRA)  and varmint rifle (DPMS) several in 9mm (Stag, Colt RRA) one in 545x39 (SW)
and one set up for perimeter defense (SW-wth an EOTECH and a ANSV night vision scope on it)


----------



## nat4900

turtledude said:


> listen moron. assault weapons are rarely used in murders. Less than two percent of all homicides involve the class of firearms that "assault weapons" are a sub part of. Hammers and knives, fists and baseball bats are used in more murders than the style of firearms that cause you to void in your panties.




....and listen you dimwitted FOX watcher.......this thread IS about the Sandy Hook murders of 5 and 6 years old with an ASSAULT weapon.......the murders were NOT done with a handgun or a baseball bat.....Go play with your penis extensions.


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> and after some patriot does a Randall Murphy on your head with a 180 grain "core loc" projectile doing 2850 FPS, what do you think the guy who takes your office is going to think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on admit it.....you got an erection just typing all those "2850 FPS" bullshit.......LOL
Click to expand...


you must be as fucked up sexually as you are when it comes to guns.  do you Jizz in your pants over the hope that the Cankled Hildabeast will be your president and dominatrix?


----------



## SwimExpert

WillHaftawaite said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> gnat
> 
> perfect nickname
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I actually like it.....buzzing in your hairy ears and kicking RWers' arses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which ass have you kicked gnat?
> 
> Other than your own
Click to expand...


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> ....and listen you dimwitted FOX watcher.......this thread IS about the Sandy Hook murders of 5 and 6 years old with an ASSAULT weapon.......the murders were NOT done with a handgun or a baseball bat.....Go play with your penis extensions.



Hey douchetard, I know more about this issue than you can fathom.  And I am a trial attorney who spent 24 years as a DOJ prosecutor.  I also defended the FBI, ATF and DEA in civil suits involving USE OF FORCE and prior to that I was general counsel for everything from major league gun dealers to a Title II machine gun maker

so STFU and stop proving that you banoids are nothing more than castrated wimps who are made that other men actually have the ability to get it up.  

Gun banners=Eunuchs.

and nothing Bushmaster did justifies a lawsuit against them


----------



## nat4900

turtledude said:


> you must be as fucked up sexually as you are when it comes to guns. do you Jizz in your pants over the hope that the Cankled Hildabeast will be your president and dominatrix?



Like it or not, Hillary will be your president......Lock up those guns when that happens to resist the urge....LOL


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you must be as fucked up sexually as you are when it comes to guns. do you Jizz in your pants over the hope that the Cankled Hildabeast will be your president and dominatrix?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, Hillary will be your president......Lock up those guns when that happens to resist the urge....LOL
Click to expand...



You might not count your cankles before they hatch.   Cankles will do more for gun sales than even the token in chief has done

men who support Hillary probably have crotches like ballerinas


----------



## nat4900

turtledude said:


> Hey douchetard, I know more about this issue than you can fathom. And I am a trial attorney who spent 24 years as a DOJ prosecutor. I also defended the FBI, ATF and DEA in civil suits involving USE OF FORCE and prior to that I was general counsel for everything from major league gun dealers to a Title II machine gun maker




and after all that....you're STILL an idiot......go figure....LOL


----------



## Hugo Furst

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> listen moron. assault weapons are rarely used in murders. Less than two percent of all homicides involve the class of firearms that "assault weapons" are a sub part of. Hammers and knives, fists and baseball bats are used in more murders than the style of firearms that cause you to void in your panties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....and listen you dimwitted FOX watcher.......this thread IS about the Sandy Hook murders of 5 and 6 years old with an ASSAULT weapon.......the murders were NOT done with a handgun or a baseball bat.....Go play with your penis extensions.
Click to expand...



What assault weapon?

He had a Bushmaster M4.

Which is a semiautomatic, NOT an assault weapon


----------



## Hugo Furst

turtledude said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own an AR-15, 223
> I own a Glock 23, .40
> I own an S&W carbine .22
> 
> Which is an assault weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's all?  I own more than a dozen AR 15s including some really nice 3G race guns (STI, Stag and RRA) three National match versions (Two Colts, one RRA)  and varmint rifle (DPMS) several in 9mm (Stag, Colt RRA) one in 545x39 (SW)
> and one set up for perimeter defense (SW-wth an EOTECH and a ANSV night vision scope on it)
Click to expand...


No, not all


----------



## eagle1462010

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are cowards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, using your fucked up "logic"....being against assault weapons that kill indiscriminately makes me a "coward" in your screwed up half brain.....Go massage your "weapon"
Click to expand...

Wow.........the Gnat has such great logic.............

I'll be watching my weapons from now on...............Now that I know that they can get up and walk out of the house and shoot someone all by themselves.....................

Could I put a leash on them gnat......would that stop them.................Sounds like a Transformers Movie.....


----------



## Crixus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?
> 
> Where did he get the gun to shoot her?  He stole the key, Mensa Boy.
Click to expand...


I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable,  and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.


----------



## Crixus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or not being able to get a gun for that matter. One thing I read said Lanza was intrested in mass shootings an such. No guns ? Maybe he makes a bomb. Who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be.  He was fascinated with Columbine, and the Columbine killers DID have explosives as well as guns.
Click to expand...


Yup. Hell, Oklahoma City was a sneaky mass killing. Thank god he did not aspire to pull something off like that.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Crixus said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?
> 
> Where did he get the gun to shoot her?  He stole the key, Mensa Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable,  and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.
Click to expand...


Most stories say he got the rifle from one of her collections, but haven't seen anything about a safe, one way or the other


----------



## Crixus

Steven_R said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some cases that is proper
> 
> why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.
Click to expand...



And that's fine for you. For me, my "assault" weapons are fine right where they are.


----------



## Steven_R

turtledude said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any firearms our civilian police use is stuff other civilians ought to be able to own freely
Click to expand...


I agree 100%.


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> and after all that....you're STILL an idiot......go figure....LOL



LOL I am not the one spewing panty crapping idiocy over guns

I am not the guy worshiping a lying bitch who got to where she was only  due to her husband.

You're a sheep.


----------



## Steven_R

Crixus said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some cases that is proper
> 
> why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine for you. For me, my "assault" weapons are fine right where they are.
Click to expand...


I agree.

My point is, if assault weapons are weapons of war and have no place on the streets, then police (civilians by the way) have no use for them. If civilian agencies can have them, then so should all civilians.

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."


----------



## Hugo Furst

You''ll find very few 'assault' weapons on the street.


----------



## turtledude

WillHaftawaite said:


> You''ll find very few 'assault' weapons on the street.



concealment is what mopes are looking for.  sort of hard to stuff an AR 15 in your pants especially when the waistband is at your knees


----------



## CowboyTed

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?
> 
> Where did he get the gun to shoot her?  He stole the key, Mensa Boy.
Click to expand...


Didn't have to the Gun Safe was in his room.

What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary

And by the way this is what the Yale University said about him after he was presented to them...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/n...ms-completely-untreated-report-says.html?_r=0

It was his father who was pushing for treatment.

So I was wrong there was a gun safe, it was in the mentally disturbed persons room...


----------



## CowboyTed

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey douchetard, I know more about this issue than you can fathom. And I am a trial attorney who spent 24 years as a DOJ prosecutor. I also defended the FBI, ATF and DEA in civil suits involving USE OF FORCE and prior to that I was general counsel for everything from major league gun dealers to a Title II machine gun maker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and after all that....you're STILL an idiot......go figure....LOL
Click to expand...


Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.

The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership... 

Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook? 
No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case... 

This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...


----------



## turtledude

CowboyTed said:


> [QU
> 
> Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.
> 
> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...
> 
> Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
> No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...
> 
> This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...



in automobiles, the insurance is apportioned by known risk

good drivers pay far less than members of groups (like teen boys) who have higher rates of claims.  Those with lots of accidents or DUI convictions pay much higher rates than say those with 20 years of no claims

more than 80% of gun shot damages are perpetrated by those who cannot even LEGALLY own a gun.  Making those who can legally own guns buy insurance means the 20% or so who cause little of the problems are being forced to subsidize the costs imposed by those who cannot be forced and will not buy insurance

MORONIC IDEA


----------



## Hugo Furst

CowboyTed said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey douchetard, I know more about this issue than you can fathom. And I am a trial attorney who spent 24 years as a DOJ prosecutor. I also defended the FBI, ATF and DEA in civil suits involving USE OF FORCE and prior to that I was general counsel for everything from major league gun dealers to a Title II machine gun maker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and after all that....you're STILL an idiot......go figure....LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.
> 
> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...
> 
> Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
> No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...
> 
> This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...
Click to expand...




CowboyTed said:


> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...



Great plan

Puts the onus on honest gun owners, and ignoring the criminal element that not only wont' pay insurance, but will laugh at those that do.

and makes millions for insurance companies

Does anyone on the left think through these ideas before they spew them?


----------



## nat4900

WillHaftawaite said:


> What assault weapon?
> 
> He had a Bushmaster M4.
> 
> Which is a semiautomatic, NOT an assault weapon




Oh, sorry.......the above will surely assuage those parentst in hat their children were NOT torn to pieces by an "asssault" rifle but from a semiautomatic one.......Very comforting....


----------



## nat4900

Steven_R said:


> "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."




Like FREE health care for the entire 3 branches of government but NOT its citizenry???


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> [
> 
> Oh, sorry.......the above will surely assuage those parentsthat their children were NOT torn to pieces by an "asssault" rifle but from a semiautomatic one.......Very comforting....



what do you think the death toll would have been if he had attacked with say you basic 5 shot pump shotgun loaded with say #4 buckshot which spews 30+ lethal projectiles with every pull of the trigger

those are the most popular hunting shotguns in the country and the woods, at least here in Ohio, are full of hunters using them to hunt turkeys

BTW assault rifles or the "scary firearms that cause you to soil yourself" don't "tear bodies to pieces"

that would be machetes like were used when african tribes were hacking each other up


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Like FREE health care for the entire 3 branches of government but NOT its citizenry???



so you are just a whining socialist teat suckler who wants a nanny government to take care of you

get a job slacker


----------



## nat4900

turtledude said:


> so you are just a whining socialist teat suckler who wants a nanny government to take care of you
> 
> get a job slacker



For a "lawyer" you have a hard time reading more than one sentence?????
hey, maybe the sanitation dept. is hiring...Give it a shot...........LOL


----------



## Hugo Furst

nat4900 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What assault weapon?
> 
> He had a Bushmaster M4.
> 
> Which is a semiautomatic, NOT an assault weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry.......the above will surely assuage those parentsthat their children were NOT torn to pieces by an "asssault" rifle but from a semiautomatic one.......Very comforting....
Click to expand...


No, it won't comfort them a bit.

but maybe, just MAYBE, one less idiot will continue calling it an 'assault' weapon.


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> [
> For a "lawyer" you have a hard time reading more than one sentence?????
> hey, maybe the sanitation dept. is hiring...Give it a shot...........LOL


we ought to compare resumes or cv's or even professions

what sort of degree did you get to be a panty soiler?


----------



## turtledude

why is it that those who support these stupid suits or push for restrictionists on honest gun owners are INVARIABLY left wing Hildabeast or Bernie supporters?


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> nat,
> I would be sympathetic to your argument but I believe it should be more like a car, you want one insure it... It is about personal responsibility... You take responsibility for the gun until you report it stolen...
> 
> Look at Sandy Hook situation, this woman had a small arsenal in her basement... No lock or gun safe with a son who was very mentally unstable...
> 
> Simple insurance would at least forced the woman to have proper security or pay very large premiums...
> 
> She paid with her life but her gross negligence cost so many more... Insurance company would pay out in this case...
> 
> What's wrong with that... Government just regulate the insurance business like they do today... Have a gun you need the right insurance(gun size, CCC, training...), your choice, your price. Government can keep away from any intrusive regulation.
> 
> What you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point regarding needed insurance....But of course, the majority of posters on this thread alone will bitch and moan that its yet another MANDATE.....
Click to expand...



Yep......and is just another Poll Tax and Literacy test equivalent on the 2nd Amendment right....you left wing regressives...first you use Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting, now you want to use mandatory, expensive insurance, to keep poor people from owning guns.......you guys never change.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are cowards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, using your fucked up "logic"....being against assault weapons that kill indiscriminately makes me a "coward" in your screwed up half brain.....Go massage your "weapon"
Click to expand...



Moron......no gun kills indiscriminately.....the owner of the gun pulls the trigger with great discretion.......

And why is it you morons can't understand that with 3,750,000 million "Assault" rifles in private hands......about 2 are used in any year for any kind of crime at all.......can you even comprehend that these rifles are not a problem....?

Twits.

3,750,000 milllion guns not used to commit murder....and of course you want to take them away from the people not using them to commit murder.....

You are freaking nuts....


----------



## 2aguy

WillHaftawaite said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?
> 
> Where did he get the gun to shoot her?  He stole the key, Mensa Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable,  and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most stories say he got the rifle from one of her collections, but haven't seen anything about a safe, one way or the other
Click to expand...



He planned it for 2 years......she could have had them locked in a safe and he would have gotten them anyway.....that is what people who plan to murder children do.....


----------



## 2aguy

Steven_R said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some cases that is proper
> 
> why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine for you. For me, my "assault" weapons are fine right where they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> My point is, if assault weapons are weapons of war and have no place on the streets, then police (civilians by the way) have no use for them. If civilian agencies can have them, then so should all civilians.
> 
> "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."
Click to expand...



If the military has them, then the people who hire, pay and equip the military....their bosses.....get the guns too.....we do not serve the military...they work for us....we are not serfs......


----------



## 2aguy

CowboyTed said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey douchetard, I know more about this issue than you can fathom. And I am a trial attorney who spent 24 years as a DOJ prosecutor. I also defended the FBI, ATF and DEA in civil suits involving USE OF FORCE and prior to that I was general counsel for everything from major league gun dealers to a Title II machine gun maker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and after all that....you're STILL an idiot......go figure....LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.
> 
> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...
> 
> Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
> No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...
> 
> This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...
Click to expand...



Nope....it is about keeping poor people from getting guns.......which is unConstitutional under the 14th Amendment....when you guys used Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting that wasn't allowed either......putting this tax on guns is the same thing....you guys never give up trying to deny rights to the little people.....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

turtledude said:


> why is it that those who support these stupid suits or push for restrictionists on honest gun owners are INVARIABLY left wing Hildabeast or Bernie supporters?



Because these political leaders tell the sheep what they are supposed to be against and what they are not.  That's why facts, charts, history means nothing to them.


----------



## Leweman

Ray From Cleveland said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it that those who support these stupid suits or push for restrictionists on honest gun owners are INVARIABLY left wing Hildabeast or Bernie supporters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because these political leaders tell the sheep what they are supposed to be against and what they are not.  That's why facts, charts, history means nothing to them.
Click to expand...


True that. Most recently,  they are taught from a very young age to not think for themselves.  Independent thought is the biggest enemy of liberalism.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crixus said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made it available?  He stole the guns and killed her.  There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person.  It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily,  not the gun companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?
> 
> Where did he get the gun to shoot her?  He stole the key, Mensa Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable,  and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.
Click to expand...


_*The warrants revealed that that FBI had learned from an interview that Adam was considered by one person they interviewed to be a “shut-in” who played Call of Duty and other video games.

Here’s some of what the police found in the home:
*_

_*A brown gun safe, unlocked, with no indication that it had been broken into.*_
*What Police Found in Adam Lanza's Home*


----------



## 2aguy

Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?



yeah armed adults at the school


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

2aguy said:


> Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?



Even if she could have, that would be on her.  But there is no reason to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for either her actions or his.  Even if she was just as evil herself and handed him the gun and ammo, the dealer nor the manufacturer could have possibly known.


----------



## SwimExpert

2aguy said:


> Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?



Well, an abortion would have probably been helpful, but there's only so much you can predict, ya know?


----------



## turtledude

Ray From Cleveland said:


> [
> 
> Even if she could have, that would be on her.  But there is no reason to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for either her actions or his.  Even if she was just as evil herself and handed him the gun and ammo, the dealer nor the manufacturer could have possibly known.



The suit is not based on a claim that Bushmaster knew, or had reason to know that Mrs Lanza had a psychotic nut case of a son who might kill.  The idiotic suit (and this is why the judge needs to be removed from office) is based on the claim that rifles-that have been sold to the public for 50 years, are rarely used in crime and are standard issue for almost every police department) arguably (its a FACTUAL DISPUTE according to the leftwing twit sitting on the bench) has NO LEGITIMATE USAGE being sold to civilians who don't work for the government

that is the argument.  but what the idiot judge fails to understand is that the ATF has approved this rifle for civilian sales and that alone should have caused the case to be thrown out


----------



## Crixus

2aguy said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?
> 
> Where did he get the gun to shoot her?  He stole the key, Mensa Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable,  and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most stories say he got the rifle from one of her collections, but haven't seen anything about a safe, one way or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He planned it for 2 years......she could have had them locked in a safe and he would have gotten them anyway.....that is what people who plan to murder children do.....
Click to expand...


Meh.


----------



## FA_Q2

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does that prove the original contention, that gun manufacturers are doing what tobacco companies did and making their products addictive?
> 
> Edit to add:  A gun certainly does give a woman walking alone a sense of confidence and power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sense is exactly the point, having a gun impacts judgment and can lead to someone walking into harm's way.
Click to expand...

Wow.  Just wow.

You know what that is exactly the same as?  She was raped because of those revealing cloths that she wore or because she went to that sleazy club.  

Walking into harms way?  Talk about blaming the victim here just so that you can attack a right.


----------



## FA_Q2

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so. Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If no one is manufacturing new guns and old guns are removed from the street, criminals will have a hard time getting them.
> 
> Like they do  in the UK, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Canada.  YOu know, the countries that don't seem to have these sorts of problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...criminals in all of those countries get guns easily....even in Japan...when the Yakuza bosses decide that they want to kill people they get guns....look up the season of the Pineapple during the last Yakuza war in 2006....they were throwing grenades at each other so often they named a season after it........the only thing keeping killing low in japan is that the bosses there want to make money...not settle insults on facebook by murdering people.......
> 
> Culture, not guns, is the issue with all of those countries.....and the gun crime rate is going up in Britain and Australia....and France...remember Charlie Hebdo and Paris...?
Click to expand...

BINGO.

The violence problem we have is one of culture.  the implement is irrelevant and virtually every statistic bears this out.  Grater gun controls have zero effect on homicides.  That is why those that want to attack the right ALWAYS point at 'gun deaths' so that they can manipulate the data.


----------



## FA_Q2

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you just said you don't like stats. Let me repeat it for you:
> 
> "The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, half-brained....Are we talking about suicides on this thread or are we talking about a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for putting out assault weapons to MAXIMIZE the number of mass shootings?
Click to expand...

You call him half brained and then claim that gun manufacturers are trying to maximize mass shootings in the same statement.  Do you not see how utterly crazy you sound?


----------



## Crixus

Have to say, I don't feel anything holding a gun.


FA_Q2 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so. Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If no one is manufacturing new guns and old guns are removed from the street, criminals will have a hard time getting them.
> 
> Like they do  in the UK, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Canada.  YOu know, the countries that don't seem to have these sorts of problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...criminals in all of those countries get guns easily....even in Japan...when the Yakuza bosses decide that they want to kill people they get guns....look up the season of the Pineapple during the last Yakuza war in 2006....they were throwing grenades at each other so often they named a season after it........the only thing keeping killing low in japan is that the bosses there want to make money...not settle insults on facebook by murdering people.......
> 
> Culture, not guns, is the issue with all of those countries.....and the gun crime rate is going up in Britain and Australia....and France...remember Charlie Hebdo and Paris...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> The violence problem we have is one of culture.  the implement is irrelevant and virtually every statistic bears this out.  Grater gun controls have zero effect on homicides.  That is why those that want to attack the right ALWAYS point at 'gun deaths' so that they can manipulate the data.
Click to expand...


Some of it could be culture, but more and more I think it's the drugs they feed these kids.


----------



## FA_Q2

Steven_R said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some cases that is proper
> 
> why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.
Click to expand...

1 - They are not on our streets as proven by the virtually non-existent death rate from those weapons.  IOW, there is no point whatsoever in banning or 'addressing' that particular class of weapon.  They are not an issue in any way shape or form.

2 - correct.  Which is why 3 is so confusing.

3 - No, they really do not.  You do understand that the police and military have VASTLY different functions.  The military is the absolute WORST police force you can ask for.


----------



## 2aguy

turtledude said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Even if she could have, that would be on her.  But there is no reason to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for either her actions or his.  Even if she was just as evil herself and handed him the gun and ammo, the dealer nor the manufacturer could have possibly known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The suit is not based on a claim that Bushmaster knew, or had reason to know that Mrs Lanza had a psychotic nut case of a son who might kill.  The idiotic suit (and this is why the judge needs to be removed from office) is based on the claim that rifles-that have been sold to the public for 50 years, are rarely used in crime and are standard issue for almost every police department) arguably (its a FACTUAL DISPUTE according to the leftwing twit sitting on the bench) has NO LEGITIMATE USAGE being sold to civilians who don't work for the government
> 
> that is the argument.  but what the idiot judge fails to understand is that the ATF has approved this rifle for civilian sales and that alone should have caused the case to be thrown out
Click to expand...



In short.....this suit is based on the fact the judge is a left wing anti gunner who wanted to attack a gun maker with the law.


----------



## turtledude

FA_Q2 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some cases that is proper
> 
> why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 - They are not on our streets as proven by the virtually non-existent death rate from those weapons.  IOW, there is no point whatsoever in banning or 'addressing' that particular class of weapon.  They are not an issue in any way shape or form.
> 
> 2 - correct.  Which is why 3 is so confusing.
> 
> 3 - No, they really do not.  You do understand that the police and military have VASTLY different functions.  The military is the absolute WORST police force you can ask for.
Click to expand...


civilian police departments don't have any greater right to deploy lethal force against criminals than other civilians do.  I know, I used to represent police departments in "use of force" cases.  I also shot a mugger so I know the laws on civilian SD better than most.  and if a government entity-state, city or federal government gives a civilian police officer or civilian LE Officer a certain weapon, that means that weapon has been found to be very suitable for CIVILIANS to use for self defense in civilian environments

SO HOW CAN other governmental entities claim that such a weapon has NO legitimate purpose whatsoever being owned by civilians who don't work for the government?  many of us are better trained and know the law better than most cops

I certainly do


----------



## CowboyTed

turtledude said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> 
> Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.
> 
> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...
> 
> Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
> No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...
> 
> This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in automobiles, the insurance is apportioned by known risk
> 
> good drivers pay far less than members of groups (like teen boys) who have higher rates of claims.  Those with lots of accidents or DUI convictions pay much higher rates than say those with 20 years of no claims
> 
> more than 80% of gun shot damages are perpetrated by those who cannot even LEGALLY own a gun.  Making those who can legally own guns buy insurance means the 20% or so who cause little of the problems are being forced to subsidize the costs imposed by those who cannot be forced and will not buy insurance
> 
> MORONIC IDEA
Click to expand...


I didn't say insurance companies would keep paying for a guns damage... I said until reported stolen.

This is about the individual responsibility of owning a gun... If someone buys a gun do you think the gun is there responsibility?

Accidents happen, shouldn't victims be compensated... Doesn't the general public deserve the protection if an accident happens while someone is exercising there right to carry a gun.

I will point out that the NRA already sells insurance very close to this... It is not hugely expensive... It only gets expensive if the insurer has not safety training (also provide by the NRA), doesn't secure their weapon and other high risk activity....

Why should the taxpayer pay for irresponsible behaviour... Financially Sandy Hook cost millions... Injuries are also high, about 235 people are shot every day not counting suicides...
Do 100,000 people get shot every year in U.S.? Facebook post says yes 

This seems something you insure against... A lot of these are just innocent accidents...

This is not all about death... A serious injury causes a lot more financial stress...


----------



## Wry Catcher

turtledude said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some cases that is proper
> 
> why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
> 2) The police aren't military.
> 3) The police need military firepower.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 - They are not on our streets as proven by the virtually non-existent death rate from those weapons.  IOW, there is no point whatsoever in banning or 'addressing' that particular class of weapon.  They are not an issue in any way shape or form.
> 
> 2 - correct.  Which is why 3 is so confusing.
> 
> 3 - No, they really do not.  You do understand that the police and military have VASTLY different functions.  The military is the absolute WORST police force you can ask for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> civilian police departments don't have any greater right to deploy lethal force against criminals than other civilians do.  I know, I used to represent police departments in "use of force" cases.  I also shot a mugger so I know the laws on civilian SD better than most.  and if a government entity-state, city or federal government gives a civilian police officer or civilian LE Officer a certain weapon, that means that weapon has been found to be very suitable for CIVILIANS to use for self defense in civilian environments
> 
> SO HOW CAN other governmental entities claim that such a weapon has NO legitimate purpose whatsoever being owned by civilians who don't work for the government?  many of us are better trained and know the law better than most cops
> 
> I certainly do
Click to expand...


Pure Sophistry, ^^^, nothing more (by that I mean sagacious thought is missing).

ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cMIVNntHs


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. Honduras has a rate of 67.18 gun deaths per 100,000 population. The U.S has 10.54 gun deaths per 100,000 population. Those figures all include homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths related to firearms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did NOT know that Honduras has recently joined the "industrialized"  fraternity....LOL
Click to expand...

Limiting it to just "industrialized" is an attempt to make America's gun violence  look worse than it is.

Dishonest. Murder and violence aren't simply restricted to "industrialized" nations.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

CowboyTed said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> 
> Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.
> 
> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...
> 
> Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
> No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...
> 
> This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in automobiles, the insurance is apportioned by known risk
> 
> good drivers pay far less than members of groups (like teen boys) who have higher rates of claims.  Those with lots of accidents or DUI convictions pay much higher rates than say those with 20 years of no claims
> 
> more than 80% of gun shot damages are perpetrated by those who cannot even LEGALLY own a gun.  Making those who can legally own guns buy insurance means the 20% or so who cause little of the problems are being forced to subsidize the costs imposed by those who cannot be forced and will not buy insurance
> 
> MORONIC IDEA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say insurance companies would keep paying for a guns damage... I said until reported stolen.
> 
> This is about the individual responsibility of owning a gun... If someone buys a gun do you think the gun is there responsibility?
> 
> Accidents happen, shouldn't victims be compensated... Doesn't the general public deserve the protection if an accident happens while someone is exercising there right to carry a gun.
> 
> I will point out that the NRA already sells insurance very close to this... It is not hugely expensive... It only gets expensive if the insurer has not safety training (also provide by the NRA), doesn't secure their weapon and other high risk activity....
> 
> Why should the taxpayer pay for irresponsible behaviour... Financially Sandy Hook cost millions... Injuries are also high, about 235 people are shot every day not counting suicides...
> Do 100,000 people get shot every year in U.S.? Facebook post says yes
> 
> This seems something you insure against... A lot of these are just innocent accidents...
> 
> This is not all about death... A serious injury causes a lot more financial stress...
Click to expand...


While nobody is required to have gun insurance, the shooter is still financially responsible in an accident or even intentional shooting. 

One of the first things we learned about the law in CCW class is that even if justified, the attacker or his family can sue you even if your own life was on the line.  Somebody approaches me demanding my wallet.  I take my wallet out quickly acting nervous and drop the wallet on the ground.  By the time the attacker takes his focus off of me to retrieve the wallet, I pull my gun and kill him.  

The police investigate and report that everything I said checked out, lets say there was a surveillance camera in the area.  The family then claims a wrongful death suit against me under the guise that I did have an option; I could have just gave him my wallet and he "probably" would have left me alone. 

Even police are held personally liable in a shooting on the job.  It's one of the laws I really think needs to be changed.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> That's your opinion
> 
> In my opinion the risk is worth it.



The Parents of the kids slaughtered at Sandy Hook disagree.   Let's see what a jury decides after they see the autopsy and crime scene photos.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion
> 
> In my opinion the risk is worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Parents of the kids slaughtered at Sandy Hook disagree.   Let's see what a jury decides after they see the autopsy and crime scene photos.
Click to expand...

If the Jimmy Carter wouldn't of closed the insane asylums(liberal compassion) then the murderer of Sandy Hook would of been put away before he killed.  Liberal compassion kills more children unborn or born every year.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> Limiting it to just "industrialized" is an attempt to make America's gun violence look worse than it is.
> 
> Dishonest. Murder and violence aren't simply restricted to "industrialized" nations.



No, limiting it to industrialized countries is drawing an apt comparison.  While I'm sure it's the goal of your Libertarian Sugar Daddies to make America more like Honduras, our political, economic and social peer groups Are the other industrialized democracies.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> If the Jimmy Carter wouldn't of closed the insane asylums(liberal compassion) then the murderer of Sandy Hook would of been put away before he killed. Liberal compassion kills more children unborn or born every year.



Jimmy Carter didn''t close the insane asylums.  

Next false argument.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> That will never happen. Too many people realize that all of our rights are precious. Most people in this country would not go for that.



Maybe you should have that conversation with the smokers at your workplace who have to smoke 20 feet away from the building after paying $9,00 a pack for their favorite vice. 

We'll do the same for the gun nuts.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> One of the first things we learned about the law in CCW class is that even if justified, the attacker or his family can sue you even if your own life was on the line. Somebody approaches me demanding my wallet. I take my wallet out quickly acting nervous and drop the wallet on the ground. By the time the attacker takes his focus off of me to retrieve the wallet, I pull my gun and kill him.



Yes, Ray sharing his snuff fantasies.  

Look, everyone, a gun nut getting off on the thought of killing someone. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Even police are held personally liable in a shooting on the job. It's one of the laws I really think needs to be changed.



Hey, your city just had to pay off the family of Tamir Rice because officer Trigger couldn't tell the difference between a child with a toy and a crook with a gun.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to just "industrialized" is an attempt to make America's gun violence look worse than it is.
> 
> Dishonest. Murder and violence aren't simply restricted to "industrialized" nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, limiting it to industrialized countries is drawing an apt comparison.  While I'm sure it's the goal of your Libertarian Sugar Daddies to make America more like Honduras, our political, economic and social peer groups Are the other industrialized democracies.
Click to expand...

I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a liberal left wing nut job went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence


> The man who killed 77 people -- many of them teenagers -- in a bombing and shooting rampage in Norway last July appeared unable to conceal his happiness after he was declared sane and sentenced to 21 years in prison today.
> 
> Anders Breivik, a leftwing socialist extremist who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle "multiculturalism" in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society.


 Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe?  Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what?  No repeat offenders.  I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips.  Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain.  In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jimmy Carter wouldn't of closed the insane asylums(liberal compassion) then the murderer of Sandy Hook would of been put away before he killed. Liberal compassion kills more children unborn or born every year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy Carter didn''t close the insane asylums.
> 
> Next false argument.
Click to expand...

TIMELINE: Deinstitutionalization And Its Consequences


> *TIMELINE: Deinstitutionalization And Its Consequences *
> *How deinstitutionalization moved thousands of mentally ill people out of hospitals—and into jails and prisons.  *


  Damn Joe caught you in another LIE.  Liberals love to lie, all the time.  Here is the reason why.  How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job


> *#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth* _merely because they say it! _


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That will never happen. Too many people realize that all of our rights are precious. Most people in this country would not go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have that conversation with the smokers at your workplace who have to smoke 20 feet away from the building after paying $9,00 a pack for their favorite vice.
> 
> We'll do the same for the gun nuts.
Click to expand...

You still didn't answer how with the ultimate GUN FREE ZONE, how come Chicago is the Murder Capital of the US?  It isn't legal concealed carry citizens out there breaking the law.  Your answer, Joe?


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a* liberal left wing nut job* went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence  Oops,



Do you even read your own links, Stupid?  

_Anders Breivik, a *rightwing extremist *who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle *"multiculturalism"* in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society._

Sweet evil Jesus, you do realize that "liberal" is an actual set of beliefs, and "not just something I can throw at anyone I don't like".  



andaronjim said:


> Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe? Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what? No repeat offenders. I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips. Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain. In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.



wow, dude, do you like watch snuff films when you aren't here?  

The problem with your approach is that it only takes effect AFTER the nutjob has killed a pre-school full of children.  That really doesn't help the parents of the kids who are still dead.  

Banning guns, or at least limiting their sale to RESPONSIBLE people, would keep that from happening altogether.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a* liberal left wing nut job* went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence  Oops,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read your own links, Stupid?
> 
> _Anders Breivik, a *rightwing extremist *who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle *"multiculturalism"* in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society._
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you do realize that "liberal" is an actual set of beliefs, and "not just something I can throw at anyone I don't like".
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe? Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what? No repeat offenders. I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips. Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain. In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, dude, do you like watch snuff films when you aren't here?
> 
> The problem with your approach is that it only takes effect AFTER the nutjob has killed a pre-school full of children.  That really doesn't help the parents of the kids who are still dead.
> 
> Banning guns, or at least limiting their sale to RESPONSIBLE people, would keep that from happening altogether.
Click to expand...

Liberals love to paint liberal killers as rightwing, but once again, I prove you wrong.
Conservatives believe in *"LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS".  *
Liberals believe in "Death to children in or out of the womb, freedom for murderers and insane people, government control of the masses, and high taxes.  Why else are liberals miserable, when other people are out having a good time?  Because liberals can never be happy, they even hate their parents for bringing their sorry asses into the world.  Sandy Hook Killer, shot his mother, because he hated her.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a* liberal left wing nut job* went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence  Oops,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read your own links, Stupid?
> 
> _Anders Breivik, a *rightwing extremist *who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle *"multiculturalism"* in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society._
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you do realize that "liberal" is an actual set of beliefs, and "not just something I can throw at anyone I don't like".
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe? Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what? No repeat offenders. I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips. Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain. In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, dude, do you like watch snuff films when you aren't here?
> 
> The problem with your approach is that it only takes effect AFTER the nutjob has killed a pre-school full of children.  That really doesn't help the parents of the kids who are still dead.
> 
> Banning guns, or at least limiting their sale to RESPONSIBLE people, would keep that from happening altogether.
Click to expand...

Sandy Hook was a GUN FREE ZONE.  That means guns were banned from that area.  Didn't do those kids or teachers much good.  But what stopped that liberal nutjob in the end?  Good guys with guns.  Damn, got you again.


----------



## Hugo Furst

andaronjim said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a* liberal left wing nut job* went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence  Oops,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read your own links, Stupid?
> 
> _Anders Breivik, a *rightwing extremist *who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle *"multiculturalism"* in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society._
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you do realize that "liberal" is an actual set of beliefs, and "not just something I can throw at anyone I don't like".
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe? Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what? No repeat offenders. I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips. Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain. In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, dude, do you like watch snuff films when you aren't here?
> 
> The problem with your approach is that it only takes effect AFTER the nutjob has killed a pre-school full of children.  That really doesn't help the parents of the kids who are still dead.
> 
> Banning guns, or at least limiting their sale to RESPONSIBLE people, would keep that from happening altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sandy Hook was a GUN FREE ZONE.  That means guns were banned from that area.  Didn't do those kids or teachers much good.  But what stopped that liberal nutjob in the end?  Good guys with guns.  Damn, got you again.
Click to expand...




andaronjim said:


> . But what stopped that liberal nutjob in the end?



He ate one of his own bullets


----------



## Rustic

CowboyTed said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> 
> Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.
> 
> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...
> 
> Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
> No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...
> 
> This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in automobiles, the insurance is apportioned by known risk
> 
> good drivers pay far less than members of groups (like teen boys) who have higher rates of claims.  Those with lots of accidents or DUI convictions pay much higher rates than say those with 20 years of no claims
> 
> more than 80% of gun shot damages are perpetrated by those who cannot even LEGALLY own a gun.  Making those who can legally own guns buy insurance means the 20% or so who cause little of the problems are being forced to subsidize the costs imposed by those who cannot be forced and will not buy insurance
> 
> MORONIC IDEA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say insurance companies would keep paying for a guns damage... I said until reported stolen.
> 
> This is about the individual responsibility of owning a gun... If someone buys a gun do you think the gun is there responsibility?
> 
> Accidents happen, shouldn't victims be compensated... Doesn't the general public deserve the protection if an accident happens while someone is exercising there right to carry a gun.
> 
> I will point out that the NRA already sells insurance very close to this... It is not hugely expensive... It only gets expensive if the insurer has not safety training (also provide by the NRA), doesn't secure their weapon and other high risk activity....
> 
> Why should the taxpayer pay for irresponsible behaviour... Financially Sandy Hook cost millions... Injuries are also high, about 235 people are shot every day not counting suicides...
> Do 100,000 people get shot every year in U.S.? Facebook post says yes
> 
> This seems something you insure against... A lot of these are just innocent accidents...
> 
> This is not all about death... A serious injury causes a lot more financial stress...
Click to expand...

So you want legalized extortion... Lol


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That will never happen. Too many people realize that all of our rights are precious. Most people in this country would not go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have that conversation with the smokers at your workplace who have to smoke 20 feet away from the building after paying $9,00 a pack for their favorite vice.
> 
> We'll do the same for the gun nuts.
Click to expand...

Smoking is not a right... Firearm ownership is. Dumbass


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first things we learned about the law in CCW class is that even if justified, the attacker or his family can sue you even if your own life was on the line. Somebody approaches me demanding my wallet. I take my wallet out quickly acting nervous and drop the wallet on the ground. By the time the attacker takes his focus off of me to retrieve the wallet, I pull my gun and kill him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Ray sharing his snuff fantasies.
> 
> Look, everyone, a gun nut getting off on the thought of killing someone.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even police are held personally liable in a shooting on the job. It's one of the laws I really think needs to be changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, your city just had to pay off the family of Tamir Rice because officer Trigger couldn't tell the difference between a child with a toy and a crook with a gun.
Click to expand...

Shit happens


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Yousaidwhat

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can address this infantile behavior without having to disarm law abiding citizens.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion
> 
> In my opinion the risk is worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Parents of the kids slaughtered at Sandy Hook disagree.   Let's see what a jury decides after they see the autopsy and crime scene photos.
Click to expand...


I really don't care if they agree or disagree.

People whose kids drown in pools might disagree that pools are safe too.

None of that has anything to do with me.  I don't have kids and I am not going to go on a shooting spree so if I own one gun or one hundred it's none of anyone's fucking business


----------



## Rustic

Yousaidwhat said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can address this infantile behavior without having to disarm law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Firearms have nothing to do with violent behavior in this country, that behavior is there with or without the firearm. Progressives need to stop making excuses for bad behavior if they are to be taken seriously… LOL


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Rustic said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can address this infantile behavior without having to disarm law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearms have nothing to do with violent behavior in this country, that behavior is there with or without the firearm. Progressives need to stop making excuses for bad behavior if they are to be taken seriously… LOL
Click to expand...

You and I both know this. 

What is the ulterior motive besides disarming the populous?


----------



## Rustic

Yousaidwhat said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can address this infantile behavior without having to disarm law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearms have nothing to do with violent behavior in this country, that behavior is there with or without the firearm. Progressives need to stop making excuses for bad behavior if they are to be taken seriously… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I both know this.
> 
> What is the ulterior motive besides disarming the populous?
Click to expand...

Everyone is pretty much set in their ways... One side or the other will have to force their will on the other.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peoples right to keep (own) and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> The militia does not have any rights the PEOPLE hold the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
> 
> in March 2007 the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote for the 2-1 majority:
> 
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court precedents can be overridden.  Now that Scalia is being ass raped by demons in Hell, we can get this stupidity overturned pretty quickly.
> 
> Oops, the Militia Amendment is about Militias again...
Click to expand...

What is the phrase American's use?

Judicial Activism.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no legal precedent to quote that says people do not have a right to own firearms but I have a Federal Appeals court decision that says they do
> 
> If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to shit can the second amendment. But I do encourage you to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment is an idea whose time has come and gone.
> 
> Now, in 1787, before we had professional armies and police forces, when hunting was necessary for survival, when you still had roaming bands of Native Americans we hadn't gotten around to genociding yet, the Second Amendment might have been a good idea.
> 
> Does it make sense in 2015?  Not even a little tiny bit.  The thing is, you don't want Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza to have an AR15 any more than I do.  But once you say, "You can't have that", it's no longer a "right", it then becomes a privilege.
Click to expand...

I choose my rights over your privilege.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron....our violent crime rate is going down...as more Americans own and actually carry guns......you are a liar...which is why we do not trust you anti gun morons........nothing you say can be trusted....
> 
> not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....those days are over ...we are going to fight you at each step....moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, we had 4 people killed and 38 wounded in Chicago over the weekend.  This comes after your boy Scalia struck down our common sense gun laws.
Click to expand...


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Rustic said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can address this infantile behavior without having to disarm law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearms have nothing to do with violent behavior in this country, that behavior is there with or without the firearm. Progressives need to stop making excuses for bad behavior if they are to be taken seriously… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I both know this.
> 
> What is the ulterior motive besides disarming the populous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone is pretty much set in their ways... One side or the other will have to force their will on the other.
Click to expand...

Or die trying.


----------



## kaz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the stats????? Too fucking bad.......We are a very violent country with a very infantile wish to constantly be at war with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can address this infantile behavior without having to disarm law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearms have nothing to do with violent behavior in this country, that behavior is there with or without the firearm. Progressives need to stop making excuses for bad behavior if they are to be taken seriously… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I both know this.
> 
> What is the ulterior motive besides disarming the populous?
Click to expand...


Yep, the left work endlessly for the tyranny of the majority, clearly when you do that you don't want an armed minority


----------



## Rustic

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no legal precedent to quote that says people do not have a right to own firearms but I have a Federal Appeals court decision that says they do
> 
> If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to shit can the second amendment. But I do encourage you to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment is an idea whose time has come and gone.
> 
> Now, in 1787, before we had professional armies and police forces, when hunting was necessary for survival, when you still had roaming bands of Native Americans we hadn't gotten around to genociding yet, the Second Amendment might have been a good idea.
> 
> Does it make sense in 2015?  Not even a little tiny bit.  The thing is, you don't want Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza to have an AR15 any more than I do.  But once you say, "You can't have that", it's no longer a "right", it then becomes a privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I choose my rights over your privilege.
Click to expand...

Joe thinks Indian tribes did not wipe other Indian tribes from existence. Lol
Joe must be roped in that politically correct history book with no real facts in it...  Indians tribes enslaved and wiped out whole other Indian tribes all the time. Of course some pussyfied politically correct history book would never say such truth… LOL


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me Natalie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it funny, when right wing imbeciles "assume" that I'm a woman because of my progressive values...
> Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.
Click to expand...


I'm well aware that your are biologically male.  I refer to you as a female because you're a pussy.


----------



## Rustic

kwc57 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me Natalie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it funny, when right wing imbeciles "assume" that I'm a woman because of my progressive values...
> Not that it matters to idiots, but I'm an older, retired MALE who doesn't need guns to prove my manhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm well aware that your are biologically male.  I refer to you as a female because you're a pussy.
Click to expand...

The progressive American male - pussy whipped


----------



## kwc57

Valerie said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to ignore the fact that every human lucky enough *to escape the liberal's knife* started out as an embryo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is there a Godwin's Law type term for threads that devolve to abortion..?
> 
> if not, there ought to be...
> 
> also should be a word for the lame posters who inevitably take just about every topic there.
> 
> BTW are you actually claiming republicans don't abort pregnancies..?
Click to expand...


The OP feigns concern about the number of deaths of children by guns.  I'm simply asking if they are equally concerned by the 10 times larger death of children by abortion.  I'm looking for consistency and to discover the real agenda behind the concern.  I suspect it isn't the death of children that concerns the OP at all, but the fear of boomsticks.  The violent death of a child is the violent death of a child, regardless of the means.  The OP pisses her pants over child death by guns, but remains silent on abortion.  She is agenda driven, not driven by any altruistic concern for children.  In short, I gave her a test, she failed and I call bullshit.


----------



## nat4900

Well, we have amply heard from the right wingers and their "love" of guns....a love mostly based on fear of the bad-ass government placing them into "relocation camps"...and a need to show how truly macho they can be on a message board.....

But there is a simple thought to ponder in everyone's privacy of one's own conscience: 

Which side of this pro or anti assault weapons' argument would Adam Lanza be supporting???


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Well, we have amply heard from the right wingers and their "love" of guns....a love mostly based on fear of the bad-ass government placing them into "relocation camps"...and a need to show how truly macho they can be on a message board.....
> 
> But there is a simple thought to ponder in everyone's privacy of one's own conscience:
> 
> Which side of this pro or anti assault weapons' argument would Adam Lanza be supporting???



Meaningless point.

Most people who support the second amendment do not have illusions of fighting the government.  They just want to protect their right to defend themselves and their families.

Why would any of you have a problem with that?


----------



## SuperDemocrat

I think if we can sue gun manufacturers for deaths their product caused then we can sue Hillary for Benghazi.   What do you think.


----------



## nat4900

Skull Pilot said:


> Meaningless point.
> 
> Most people who support the second amendment do not have illusions of fighting the government. They just want to protect their right to defend themselves and their families.
> 
> Why would any of you have a problem with that?




Defending yourselves from EXACTLY WHAT?????

A burglar? A bear? A salesman?...............The point here is NOT to take away all your cute little guns....the point is that assault-style-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-in-shortest-time kind of weapons have NO place in a civilized society.


----------



## kwc57

WillHaftawaite said:


> I own an AR-15, 223
> I own a Glock 23, .40
> I own an S&W carbine .22
> 
> Which is an assault weapon



Well according to Natalie, they all make a scary boom and that assaults her sensitive nature......so they all are assault weapons.


----------



## nat4900

SuperDemocrat said:


> we can sue Hillary for Benghazi. What do you think.




Ask a grown up what fucking sense "suing Hillary for Benghazi" would make......Keep your hatred of Hillary to yourself....it has no place on this thread.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are cowards
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, using your fucked up "logic"....being against assault weapons that kill indiscriminately....
Click to expand...

More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.


----------



## Crixus

CowboyTed said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> 
> Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.
> 
> The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...
> 
> Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
> No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...
> 
> This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in automobiles, the insurance is apportioned by known risk
> 
> good drivers pay far less than members of groups (like teen boys) who have higher rates of claims.  Those with lots of accidents or DUI convictions pay much higher rates than say those with 20 years of no claims
> 
> more than 80% of gun shot damages are perpetrated by those who cannot even LEGALLY own a gun.  Making those who can legally own guns buy insurance means the 20% or so who cause little of the problems are being forced to subsidize the costs imposed by those who cannot be forced and will not buy insurance
> 
> MORONIC IDEA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say insurance companies would keep paying for a guns damage... I said until reported stolen.
> 
> This is about the individual responsibility of owning a gun... If someone buys a gun do you think the gun is there responsibility?
> 
> Accidents happen, shouldn't victims be compensated... Doesn't the general public deserve the protection if an accident happens while someone is exercising there right to carry a gun.
> 
> I will point out that the NRA already sells insurance very close to this... It is not hugely expensive... It only gets expensive if the insurer has not safety training (also provide by the NRA), doesn't secure their weapon and other high risk activity....
> 
> Why should the taxpayer pay for irresponsible behaviour... Financially Sandy Hook cost millions... Injuries are also high, about 235 people are shot every day not counting suicides...
> Do 100,000 people get shot every year in U.S.? Facebook post says yes
> 
> This seems something you insure against... A lot of these are just innocent accidents...
> 
> This is not all about death... A serious injury causes a lot more financial stress...
Click to expand...


Thing is,  the people doing the shooting don't care much about insurance or law lawsuits.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> Well, we have amply heard from the right wingers and their "love" of guns....a love mostly based on fear of the bad-ass government placing them into "relocation camps"...and a need to show how truly macho they can be on a message board.....
> 
> But there is a simple thought to ponder in everyone's privacy of one's own conscience:
> 
> Which side of this pro or anti assault weapons' argument would Adam Lanza be supporting???


Adam Lanza before 1976 would of been put in an insane asylum by his mother, but since Jimmy Carter's, liberal compassion, when she needed help, there wasn't any there.  Liberalism is the death of millions. 
As for relocation camps, if there wasn't a 2nd amendment, many of YOU would be working in those today.  See picture below, dumbass.


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> *Adam Lanza before 1976 would of been put in an insane asylum by his mother, but since Jimmy Carter's, liberal compassion, when she needed help, there wasn't any there. Liberalism is the death of millions. *
> As for relocation camps, if there wasn't a 2nd amendment, many of YOU would be working in those today. See picture below, dumbass.




...and here chimes in yet ANOTHER ignorant right wing idiot........It was NOT Carter who eliminated "insane asylum".....It was your "hero" Reagan.

_Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.

He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization.
Did Reagan’s Crazy Mental Health Policies Cause Today’s Homelessness? – Poverty Insights_


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Adam Lanza before 1976 would of been put in an insane asylum by his mother, but since Jimmy Carter's, liberal compassion, when she needed help, there wasn't any there. Liberalism is the death of millions. *
> As for relocation camps, if there wasn't a 2nd amendment, many of YOU would be working in those today. See picture below, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and here chimes in yet ANOTHER ignorant right wing idiot........It was NOT Carter who eliminated "insane asylum".....It was your "hero" Reagan.
> 
> _Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.
> 
> He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization.
> Did Reagan’s Crazy Mental Health Policies Cause Today’s Homelessness? – Poverty Insights_
Click to expand...




> If a liberal says it enough, they believe that people will believe what they say(I did not have sexual relations with that woman)


Apr 27, 2016 at 7:31 AM #1451



Online
*andaronjimVIP Member *
↑ 
If the Jimmy Carter wouldn't of closed the insane asylums(liberal compassion) then the murderer of Sandy Hook would of been put away before he killed. Liberal compassion kills more children unborn or born every year.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Carter didn''t close the insane asylums.

Next false argument.
Click to expand...
TIMELINE: Deinstitutionalization And Its Consequences

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job
*#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth* _merely because they say it! _


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Well, we have amply heard from the right wingers and their "love" of guns....a love mostly based on fear of the bad-ass government placing them into "relocation camps"...and a need to show how truly macho they can be on a message board.....
> 
> But there is a simple thought to ponder in everyone's privacy of one's own conscience:
> 
> Which side of this pro or anti assault weapons' argument would Adam Lanza be supporting???


He was a progressive = pussy whipped


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless point.
> 
> Most people who support the second amendment do not have illusions of fighting the government. They just want to protect their right to defend themselves and their families.
> 
> Why would any of you have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending yourselves from EXACTLY WHAT?????
> 
> A burglar? A bear? A salesman?...............The point here is NOT to take away all your cute little guns....the point is that assault-style-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-in-shortest-time kind of weapons have NO place in a civilized society.
Click to expand...

It's none of the federal governments business who owns what, whether it be type firearms/number of firearms, how much money anyone makes or how much energy anyone consumes. 
...anyway dip shits like yourself have no clue the difference between a sporting rifle and a military grade weapon.
An ar15 is just a sporting rifle. Dumbass


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Adam Lanza before 1976 would of been put in an insane asylum by his mother, but since Jimmy Carter's, liberal compassion, when she needed help, there wasn't any there. Liberalism is the death of millions. *
> As for relocation camps, if there wasn't a 2nd amendment, many of YOU would be working in those today. See picture below, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and here chimes in yet ANOTHER ignorant right wing idiot........It was NOT Carter who eliminated "insane asylum".....It was your "hero" Reagan.
> 
> _Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.
> 
> He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization.
> Did Reagan’s Crazy Mental Health Policies Cause Today’s Homelessness? – Poverty Insights_
Click to expand...

Tissue?


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Yes, using your fucked up "logic"....being against assault weapons that kill indiscriminately makes me a "coward" in your screwed up half brain.....Go massage your "weapon"



What is an "assault weapon," gnat? If that is any rifle with a detachable magazine as you retards normally claim, then shouldn't the .22 that I've had for over 40 years have racked up a massive body count?

Yet it's never killed anyone... must be defective...

So gnat, just how many killings are these "assault weapons" responsible for each year? Must be a lot, right?

Unless, you're just an anti-liberty scumbag lying to promote your war on civil rights..

Oh, is *THIS* how you kick peoples asses. gnat?


----------



## Uncensored2008

turtledude said:


> listen moron.  assault weapons are rarely used in murders.  Less than two percent of all homicides involve the class of firearms that "assault weapons" are a sub part of. Hammers and knives, fists and baseball bats are used in more murders than the style of firearms that cause you to void in your panties.
> 
> so you are both a moron and a liar.  You hear the word "assault weapon" and your bladder fails.  because you are ignorant of firearms, and a leftwing idiot who hates the NRA and its support of conservative candidates.  That is what motivates your stupidity



Now you're just confusing the little Khmer Rouge fuck. Gnat has an aversion to fact and reality, as all leftists do...


----------



## Rustic




----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> If the Jimmy Carter wouldn't of closed the insane asylums(liberal compassion) then the murderer of Sandy Hook would of been put away before he killed. Liberal compassion kills more children unborn or born every year.




It is rather amusing that even when right wing morons have been kicked to the curb....they don't even realize.

Besides all that, learn to write "WOULD HAVE" and NOT, "would of", you ignorant moron.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Come on admit it.....you got an erection just typing all those "2850 FPS" bullshit.......LOL



Come on admit it, you've never been able to get an erection, which is why you attack the civil rights of others. To satiate the rage born of frustration that dominates your pathetic life.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> Well, we have amply heard from the right wingers and their "love" of guns....a love mostly based on fear of the bad-ass government placing them into "relocation camps"...and a need to show how truly macho they can be on a message board.....
> 
> But there is a simple thought to ponder in everyone's privacy of one's own conscience:
> 
> Which side of this pro or anti assault weapons' argument would Adam Lanza be supporting???




He would support your side.......because he could still get an AR-15 if it was illegal....normal people would not.......thanks for supporting the side of a mass shooter...you must be proud.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless point.
> 
> Most people who support the second amendment do not have illusions of fighting the government. They just want to protect their right to defend themselves and their families.
> 
> Why would any of you have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending yourselves from EXACTLY WHAT?????
> 
> A burglar? A bear? A salesman?...............The point here is NOT to take away all your cute little guns....the point is that assault-style-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-in-shortest-time kind of weapons have NO place in a civilized society.
Click to expand...



Wrong....and doubly wrong......there is no mass shooting that has occurred that could not have been done with pistols and shotguns instead of the AR-15 that was used.  Not one.

And that is the key...once they get the AR-15.......3,750,000 in private hands and 2 were used in 2012 for mass shootings...do you understand those numbers?  Once they get rid of the AR-15 and the next shooter uses pistols and shotguns...then we have to get rid of those weapons which they will say were only designed to kill as many people as possible part 2......

We know how you think....AR-15s are not used in crime or mass shootings in a relevant way....compared to the 3,750,000 that were not used that year to commit any crime....

If the police have the weapon.....if the military has a weapon...we get that weapon...history has shown why that is necessary......read some....look up Germany 1920-1945......


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jimmy Carter wouldn't of closed the insane asylums(liberal compassion) then the murderer of Sandy Hook would of been put away before he killed. Liberal compassion kills more children unborn or born every year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing that even when right wing morons have been kicked to the curb....they don't even realize.
> 
> Besides all that, learn to write "WOULD HAVE" and NOT, "would of", you ignorant moron.
Click to expand...

Only ignorant morons are those that voted for Obama twice.  Those that voted for him the first time, realized that they were duped.  The second time, just plain stupid.  Have you notice that in the inner cites like Chicago(where Obama was from) blacks killing blacks don't seem to matter?  Yet the OP had to bring up Sandy Hook.  Did you know that the Fort Hood Massacre more people were shot than at Sandy Hook?  Allah uh Akbar is another reason an armed citizenry is needed.  This Administration is allowing 20,000 Syrian refugees in, with 5% being terrorists.  That means 100 of them are out to kill US citizens.  So much for Obama swearing to protect the citizens of the US.


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> et the OP had to bring up Sandy Hook. Did you know that the Fort Hood Massacre more people were shot than at Sandy Hook?




Hey, moron.........This thread _IS_ about Sandy Hook....NOT Ft. Hood......Sandy Hook had babies killed into pieces.


----------



## nat4900

2aguy said:


> We know how you think....AR-15s are not used in crime or mass shootings in a relevant way....compared to the 3,750,000 that were not used that year to commit any crime....




Given THAT stupid "rationale" then its OK to have Iran explode a nuke, since thousands of other nukes have not been used?


----------



## nat4900

2aguy said:


> He would support your side.......because he could still get an AR-15 if it was illegal....normal people would not.....




Find a grown up to read the above back to you...and see if it makes any kind of freaking sense.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how you think....AR-15s are not used in crime or mass shootings in a relevant way....compared to the 3,750,000 that were not used that year to commit any crime....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given THAT stupid "rationale" then its OK to have Iran explode a nuke, since thousands of other nukes have not been used?
Click to expand...



Given that you are just stupid.......cars killed 35,000 people accidentally in 2013.....guns 8,124, intentionally, 505 accidentally......so moron.......you obviously support banning all privately owned vehicles...right moron......if you keep the same logic as you do for guns...moron.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would support your side.......because he could still get an AR-15 if it was illegal....normal people would not.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a grown up to read the above back to you...and see if it makes any kind of freaking sense.
Click to expand...



Let me explain it to you.....

the Sandy Hook shooter was planning his crime for 2 years..... last year a 19 year old kid in Britain bought a Glock 19, ammunition and plastic explosives on the Dark Web....the only reason he didn't shoot up the university that had kicked him out was because he posted about it on the internet before he did it.......in an Island country, that confiscated all of their guns, that made hand guns illegal, and has extreme gun control on the limited number of hunting shotguns for gun clubs....he was able to get a glock 19 and enough ammo to double the number of kids killed at Sandy Hook.

So the Sandy Hook shooter would support you and your stupidity.....because nothing would have stopped him from getting that gun...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> et the OP had to bring up Sandy Hook. Did you know that the Fort Hood Massacre more people were shot than at Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, moron.........This thread _IS_ about Sandy Hook....NOT Ft. Hood......Sandy Hook had babies killed into pieces.
Click to expand...

Abortion clinics killed babies into pieces and sold those pieces, all in the name of liberal compassion(Choice).  Would you like to try again?


----------



## GHook93

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently?  He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act.  The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.
Click to expand...


Are you for outlawing all guns?


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> et the OP had to bring up Sandy Hook. Did you know that the Fort Hood Massacre more people were shot than at Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, moron.........This thread _IS_ about Sandy Hook....NOT Ft. Hood......Sandy Hook had babies killed into pieces.
Click to expand...

By someone who murdered his mother and stole her legally manufactured and purchased guns.
Your conclusion:  This is Bushmaster's fault!!


----------



## nat4900

GHook93 said:


> Are you for outlawing all guns?



Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> .All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.


More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot


----------



## nat4900

M14 Shooter said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot
Click to expand...



Based on your avatar you could have been a good mentor for Lanza.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for outlawing all guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
Click to expand...

With 33,000 born and unborn babies being executed on the abortion table each month, should they ban abortion clinics, which kills 10,000 times more babies in a year than an assault rifle?


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> With 33,000 born and unborn babies being executed on the abortion table each month, should they ban abortion clinics, which kills 10,000 times more babies in a year than an assault rifle?




For slow-witted and ignorant right wingers...RE-READ the title of this thread....It is about the Sandy Hook murders.....

All your other bitching can go to another thread....or just stew in your own bile.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> With 33,000 born and unborn babies being executed on the abortion table each month, should they ban abortion clinics, which kills 10,000 times more babies in a year than an assault rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For slow-witted and ignorant right wingers...RE-READ the title of this thread....It is about the Sandy Hook murders.....
> 
> All your other bitching can go to another thread....or just stew in your own bile.
Click to expand...

So you don't care when babies are killed by butcher's knives(which is why you smiled) but because the liberal talking points is to ban guns, then you "act" indignant when some left wing lunatic goes into a GUN FREE ZONE, and kills 10,000's less babies?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> With 33,000 born and unborn babies being executed on the abortion table each month, should they ban abortion clinics, which kills 10,000 times more babies in a year than an assault rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For slow-witted and ignorant right wingers...RE-READ the title of this thread....It is about the Sandy Hook murders.....
> 
> All your other bitching can go to another thread....or just stew in your own bile.
Click to expand...

The more you call me slow-witted the more it makes you look like a r-tard.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on your avatar you could have been a good mentor for Lanza.
Click to expand...

More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Liberals love to paint liberal killers as rightwing, but once again, I prove you wrong.
> Conservatives believe in *"LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". *



No, you don't.  Clearly, given your way, you'd oppress the shit out of gays, poor people, women seeking abortions, or anyone who doesn't pray to your magic sky pixie.  You are a tool of the rich, and too stupid to realize it.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> I really don't care if they agree or disagree.
> 
> People whose kids drown in pools might disagree that pools are safe too.
> 
> None of that has anything to do with me. I don't have kids and I am not going to go on a shooting spree so if I own one gun or one hundred it's none of anyone's fucking business



That what you say now, but every mass shooter stated out as a malignant narcissist...


----------



## JoeB131

kwc57 said:


> The OP feigns concern about the number of deaths of children by guns. I'm simply asking if they are equally concerned by the 10 times larger death of children by abortion.



Fetuses aren't children.  Next lame argument?


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Adam Lanza before 1976 would of been put in an insane asylum by his mother, but since Jimmy Carter's, liberal compassion, when she needed help, there wasn't any there. Liberalism is the death of millions.
> As for relocation camps, if there wasn't a 2nd amendment, many of YOU would be working in those today. See picture below, dumbass.



Uh, no, he probably wouldn't have.  The thing is, the asylums wer really only for those who had no one else to take care of them.  Lanza's mother was as crazy as he was...


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jimmy Carter wouldn't of closed the insane asylums(liberal compassion) then the murderer of Sandy Hook would of been put away before he killed. Liberal compassion kills more children unborn or born every year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing that even when right wing morons have been kicked to the curb....they don't even realize.
> 
> Besides all that, learn to write "WOULD HAVE" and NOT, "would of", you ignorant moron.
Click to expand...


Godwins law, revised: the first one to go "grammar Nazi" has lost the debate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> [Q
> Fetuses aren't children.  Next lame argument?



What are they then, Comrade Stalin, puppies?


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> et the OP had to bring up Sandy Hook. Did you know that the Fort Hood Massacre more people were shot than at Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, moron.........This thread _IS_ about Sandy Hook....NOT Ft. Hood......Sandy Hook had babies killed into pieces.
Click to expand...

Tissue?


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how you think....AR-15s are not used in crime or mass shootings in a relevant way....compared to the 3,750,000 that were not used that year to commit any crime....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given THAT stupid "rationale" then its OK to have Iran explode a nuke, since thousands of other nukes have not been used?
Click to expand...

Deflection noted


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals love to paint liberal killers as rightwing, but once again, I prove you wrong.
> Conservatives believe in *"LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't.  Clearly, given your way, you'd oppress the shit out of gays, poor people, women seeking abortions, or anyone who doesn't pray to your magic sky pixie.  You are a tool of the rich, and too stupid to realize it.
Click to expand...

So gays are allowed to oppress normal people and you have no problem with that.  Why is it after 7 1/2 years of Obama there are more poor people?  Because liberals don't give a rats ass about the poor, children or anyone else, because it is all about the liberal.  Women seeking abortions should of kept their legs closed, not fuck like Bill Clinton(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) and now you EVIL people want people like Bill in women's bathrooms.  The difference between US and you is that we KNOW what is right and wrong, good and evil, while you insane ones have greyed everything to the point that a man with a pecker and balls, can have tits and THINK he is a girl.  Guess you didn't realize that Warren Buffet is RICH.  Bill Gates is RICH. Al GORE is RICH.  Bill Clinton and the vagina candidate is RICH.  Talk about a fool for the rich, go look in the mirror and say, "Joe, I do have a little Homer Simpson in me".    Poison Pero is RIGHT!: Cass Sunstein (Obama Regulatory/'Manipulatory' Czar)


> The _"Homer Simpson"_ reference is a nice way to say we are all ignorant fools, but this kind of talking down to the American people is a given in Obamaville.  So, I'm going to skip over it and go to the important part of the quote.


 Such stupid people who continue to vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## Uncensored2008

andaronjim said:


> With 33,000 born and unborn babies being executed on the abortion table each month, should they ban abortion clinics, which kills 10,000 times more babies in a year than an assault rifle?



No, those are good killings. The babies are happy to die to promote leftism.

You must understand "good die" and "bad die." Gnat is all for the death of babies, provided it is in the holy sacrament of Abortion (infant sacrifice.)

Gnat would have loved life with the Mayans, they had the same basic respect for human life.


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how you think....AR-15s are not used in crime or mass shootings in a relevant way....compared to the 3,750,000 that were not used that year to commit any crime....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given THAT stupid "rationale" then its OK to have Iran explode a nuke, since thousands of other nukes have not been used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you are just stupid.......cars killed 35,000 people accidentally in 2013.....guns 8,124, intentionally, 505 accidentally......so moron.......you obviously support banning all privately owned vehicles...right moron......if you keep the same logic as you do for guns...moron.
Click to expand...

He's like a clown show, thinking any more laws will help any of this is stupidly ignorant. 
Think of it as the war on drugs making them more "illegal" with more laws... did that help?
These dumbass gun grabbers don't have a lick of common sense… LOL


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> For slow-witted and ignorant right wingers...



I don't know any slow-witted and ignorant right wingers. 

The slow-witted and ignorant are drawn the left, as you were.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP feigns concern about the number of deaths of children by guns. I'm simply asking if they are equally concerned by the 10 times larger death of children by abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children.  Next lame argument?
Click to expand...

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job


> *#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse.* Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others.


 Funny how Joe thinks babies born outside the womb and killed on the table are Fetuses.  Sociopaths feel that way.


----------



## Rustic

andaronjim said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals love to paint liberal killers as rightwing, but once again, I prove you wrong.
> Conservatives believe in *"LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't.  Clearly, given your way, you'd oppress the shit out of gays, poor people, women seeking abortions, or anyone who doesn't pray to your magic sky pixie.  You are a tool of the rich, and too stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So gays are allowed to oppress normal people and you have no problem with that.  Why is it after 7 1/2 years of Obama there are more poor people?  Because liberals don't give a rats ass about the poor, children or anyone else, because it is all about the liberal.  Women seeking abortions should of kept their legs closed, not fuck like Bill Clinton(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) and now you EVIL people want people like Bill in women's bathrooms.  The difference between US and you is that we KNOW what is right and wrong, good and evil, while you insane ones have greyed everything to the point that a man with a pecker and balls, can have tits and THINK he is a girl.  Guess you didn't realize that Warren Buffet is RICH.  Bill Gates is RICH. Al GORE is RICH.  Bill Clinton and the vagina candidate is RICH.  Talk about a fool for the rich, go look in the mirror and say, "Joe, I do have a little Homer Simpson in me".    Poison Pero is RIGHT!: Cass Sunstein (Obama Regulatory/'Manipulatory' Czar)
> 
> 
> 
> The _"Homer Simpson"_ reference is a nice way to say we are all ignorant fools, but this kind of talking down to the American people is a given in Obamaville.  So, I'm going to skip over it and go to the important part of the quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such stupid people who continue to vote Dumbocrat.
Click to expand...

The Democrats know they have the poor peoples vote… They're takers and users. LOL


----------



## Uncensored2008

andaronjim said:


> [
> 
> So you don't care when babies are killed by butcher's knives(which is why you smiled) but because the liberal talking points is to ban guns, then you "act" indignant when some left wing lunatic goes into a GUN FREE ZONE, and kills 10,000's less babies?



Gnat seeks to end civil rights.

If saving children will aid in ending civil rights, he will support it.

If killing children will aid in ending civil rights, Gnat will call for the death of children.

Anything which strips the American people of rights is what Gnat, and all of the Khmer Rouge democrats, support.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

The real reason why Joe and other liberals want guns out of the hands of working citizens?  People like this teen couldn't stop Joe for raping, or stealing or killing unarmed citizens.  That is why liberals are sociopaths.  Teen Shoots Burglar With Dad's Assault Rifle - Blur Brain


> This story is about two weeks old now. What’s that? You didn’t hear about it from the State Run Media? Well shucks! Truth is, stories about law abiding civilians using guns to thwart crime and defend themselves never seem to be as newsworthy as stories about nutjobs who misuse firearms. I wonder why? Maybe because they don’t promote the media’s anti-gun agenda.


 Back in the day, people like Joe were admitted to the rubber room, now they run free in America.


----------



## kwc57

JoeB131 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP feigns concern about the number of deaths of children by guns. I'm simply asking if they are equally concerned by the 10 times larger death of children by abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children.  Next lame argument?
Click to expand...


Fetuses aren't children?  That's your argument?  Seriously?  Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb?  On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb?  Did you actually care for it once it was born?  What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types?  Why do you hate humanity so much?  Did your mother beat you as a child?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That will never happen. Too many people realize that all of our rights are precious. Most people in this country would not go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have that conversation with the smokers at your workplace who have to smoke 20 feet away from the building after paying $9,00 a pack for their favorite vice.
> 
> We'll do the same for the gun nuts.
Click to expand...


Is there a constitutional right to smoke?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a* liberal left wing nut job* went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence  Oops,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read your own links, Stupid?
> 
> _Anders Breivik, a *rightwing extremist *who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle *"multiculturalism"* in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society._
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you do realize that "liberal" is an actual set of beliefs, and "not just something I can throw at anyone I don't like".
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe? Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what? No repeat offenders. I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips. Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain. In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, dude, do you like watch snuff films when you aren't here?
> 
> The problem with your approach is that it only takes effect AFTER the nutjob has killed a pre-school full of children.  That really doesn't help the parents of the kids who are still dead.
> 
> Banning guns, or at least limiting their sale to RESPONSIBLE people, would keep that from happening altogether.
Click to expand...


You seem to think that guns are just going to disappear.  Lol.


----------



## nat4900

Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......

Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."

Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."

The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> ....against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.


This is a lie.
Why does it not bother you that you have to lie to make your points?
Why does it not bother you that you can only make your points at the expense of innocent children?


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.



Except for one crucial difference.  Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.



This is just a really stupid post.  Lol.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> Except for one crucial difference. Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.




Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.

This thread (for those slow-witted, right wingers) is NOT about stopping  the sale of any guns....BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for one crucial difference. Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.
> 
> This thread (for those slow-witted, right wingers) is NOT about stopping  the sale of any guns....BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)
Click to expand...


It is a constitutional right, whether you like it or not.  That is just a fact.  Accept it.


----------



## ChrisL

Unless the product is defective, the lawsuit is frivolous.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.


More bigoted, mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.



> ...BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)


Why does it not bother you that you have to lie to make your points?
Why does it not bother you that you can only make your points at the expense of innocent children?


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.


Firearm ownership is an right... Live with it...


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for one crucial difference. Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.
> 
> This thread (for those slow-witted, right wingers) is NOT about stopping  the sale of any guns....BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)
Click to expand...








You and joe keep bringing up penis... Yes, yes we know your obsession with them, you don't have to remind us…
Lol


----------



## Rustic




----------



## edteach

We are told by that silly bitch judge that the AR15 is not  a good self defense weapon but its too deadly for people to own. So is that not a contradiction?  Is that not exactly what you want in a self defense weapon? I do not want a squirt gun to piss off the people breaking down my door. This is a gun control by back door and nothing more. The AR15 in 223 is not a particularly lethal caliber. Its much less deadly than a 3006 or 308. But the libtard does not care about fact. A shot gun is much more deadly at the range Lanza was at then the AR. Never forget Fienstein who said after complaints about the Clintion crime bill in 94 "If I could have said Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in I would have done it"  The libtard does not want ARs and AKs and they will leave your shot guns and hunting rifles alone. They are like Hitler saying after Czechoslovakia that he would not take any more land. Don't buy this shit at all.


----------



## ChrisL

The founders determined that we the people have the right to defend ourselves, our livelihoods and our property.  It's all part of being free in a free country.  

Just because some crazy people or criminals will abuse the right and misuse weapons, that is not a good enough reason to punish the law abiding people who own weapons.  

The vast majority of legal gun owners never shoot or kill anyone.  That's a fact.


----------



## Rustic

edteach said:


> We are told by that silly bitch judge that the AR15 is not  a good self defense weapon but its too deadly for people to own. So is that not a contradiction?  Is that not exactly what you want in a self defense weapon? I do not want a squirt gun to piss off the people breaking down my door. This is a gun control by back door and nothing more. The AR15 in 223 is not a particularly lethal caliber. Its much less deadly than a 3006 or 308. But the libtard does not care about fact. A shot gun is much more deadly at the range Lanza was at then the AR. Never forget Fienstein who said after complaints about the Clintion crime bill in 94 "If I could have said Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in I would have done it"  The libtard does not want ARs and AKs and they will leave your shot guns and hunting rifles alone. They are like Hitler saying after Czechoslovakia that he would not take any more land. Don't buy this shit at all.


Ask any progressive on the specifics of a military grade weapon vs a sporting rifle like an ar15... Its crickets. Liken to a bag of hammers... They are Stupidly ignorant on the subject. Lol


----------



## ChrisL

Here's What the Mainstream Media WON'T Tell You About Mass Shootings - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 million gun owners in this nation.

The “Mass Shooting Tracker” counts any incident where four or more people are shot, whether fatally or not, as a mass shooting. For 2015 so far, this tracker counts 294 incidents — of those, there are names for only 45 of the shooters, which leads me to believe the others are gang or crime related. But let’s assume for a moment all 294 shooters were actually law-abiding, legal gun owners.

That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 249 or .00025 percent of the gun-owning population are potential mass shooters.

Of course, now the gun control activists are out in force. Any person who legally owns a gun must be a certified nut bag.

It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.


But some perspective is needed.

According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, 375 individuals have been killed during a mass shooting in 2015.

Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.

Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?

Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.


----------



## ChrisL

The anti-rights crowd does not have facts on their side.  All they have is fear mongering and untruths.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ChrisL said:


> The anti-rights crowd does not have facts on their side.  All they have is fear mongering and untruths.


As proven over and over on this topic, anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Rustic

ChrisL said:


> Here's What the Mainstream Media WON'T Tell You About Mass Shootings - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 million gun owners in this nation.
> 
> The “Mass Shooting Tracker” counts any incident where four or more people are shot, whether fatally or not, as a mass shooting. For 2015 so far, this tracker counts 294 incidents — of those, there are names for only 45 of the shooters, which leads me to believe the others are gang or crime related. But let’s assume for a moment all 294 shooters were actually law-abiding, legal gun owners.
> 
> That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 249 or .00025 percent of the gun-owning population are potential mass shooters.
> 
> Of course, now the gun control activists are out in force. Any person who legally owns a gun must be a certified nut bag.
> 
> It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.
> 
> 
> But some perspective is needed.
> 
> According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, 375 individuals have been killed during a mass shooting in 2015.
> 
> Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?
> 
> Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.


This why so called "gun" violence is an nonissue in this country... Criminal behavior is the real issue.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for outlawing all guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
Click to expand...



Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...

So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic




----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care if they agree or disagree.
> 
> People whose kids drown in pools might disagree that pools are safe too.
> 
> None of that has anything to do with me. I don't have kids and I am not going to go on a shooting spree so if I own one gun or one hundred it's none of anyone's fucking business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what you say now, but every mass shooter stated out as a malignant narcissist...
Click to expand...



And you only want them to have guns...you are a freaking genius....


----------



## Rustic




----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP feigns concern about the number of deaths of children by guns. I'm simply asking if they are equally concerned by the 10 times larger death of children by abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children.  Next lame argument?
Click to expand...



And the Germans said Jews weren't people either....how did that turn out....?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.




No...the left wing, anti gun judge ignored existing law in order to push a political attack on a gun manufacturer......and to expose them to the massive expense of defending themselves.....


----------



## Rustic




----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for one crucial difference. Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.
> 
> This thread (for those slow-witted, right wingers) is NOT about stopping  the sale of any guns....BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)
Click to expand...


Wrong...you are on a device that by your logic is not covered by the first Amendment.........since it didn't exist at the time of the Founding.....

The purpose of the AR-15 is to keep the owner alive.......and to protect the owner from violent attack.

Any murder committed by an AR-15 can just as easily be done with a shotgun or pistol....which is the point....get the AR....then come back after the next mass shooting and get the shotgun and the pistol.


----------



## kwc57

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for one crucial difference.  Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
Click to expand...


Now, now.....don't confuse Natalie with facts.  She isn't quick enough to understand truth and logic.  For instance, she has had her ass kicked repeatedly in this thread for days now and she actually thinks she is winning.  I don't like to use the word retarded, but........


----------



## 2aguy

Rustic said:


>




Except, with respect....that is not accurate....322 is the number for all rifles combined....AR-15s in particular are responsible for incredibly less than that...if that on any given year.......


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for outlawing all guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...
> 
> So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........
Click to expand...

Never mind nat and his comrade joe... They have an strange obsession of penis. They are Constantly bringing it up in their posts. 
Very strange...
Lol


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Here's What the Mainstream Media WON'T Tell You About Mass Shootings - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 million gun owners in this nation.
> 
> The “Mass Shooting Tracker” counts any incident where four or more people are shot, whether fatally or not, as a mass shooting. For 2015 so far, this tracker counts 294 incidents — of those, there are names for only 45 of the shooters, which leads me to believe the others are gang or crime related. But let’s assume for a moment all 294 shooters were actually law-abiding, legal gun owners.
> 
> That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 249 or .00025 percent of the gun-owning population are potential mass shooters.
> 
> Of course, now the gun control activists are out in force. Any person who legally owns a gun must be a certified nut bag.
> 
> It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.
> 
> 
> But some perspective is needed.
> 
> According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, 375 individuals have been killed during a mass shooting in 2015.
> 
> Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?
> 
> Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.




The mass shooting tracker is an anti gun lying site.....they use any shooting as a mass shooting including gang bangers shooting each other at a party over a craps game...check the list of incidents...the majority are crimes by criminals.....that is why the FBI does not include criminal behavior in public mass shooting counts...
.
Mother JOnes actually counted mass shootings going back to the 90s....last year there were 4....2 of them were muslim terrorists.......I'll get it...


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Here's What the Mainstream Media WON'T Tell You About Mass Shootings - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 million gun owners in this nation.
> 
> The “Mass Shooting Tracker” counts any incident where four or more people are shot, whether fatally or not, as a mass shooting. For 2015 so far, this tracker counts 294 incidents — of those, there are names for only 45 of the shooters, which leads me to believe the others are gang or crime related. But let’s assume for a moment all 294 shooters were actually law-abiding, legal gun owners.
> 
> That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 249 or .00025 percent of the gun-owning population are potential mass shooters.
> 
> Of course, now the gun control activists are out in force. Any person who legally owns a gun must be a certified nut bag.
> 
> It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.
> 
> 
> But some perspective is needed.
> 
> According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, 375 individuals have been killed during a mass shooting in 2015.
> 
> Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?
> 
> Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.




Here you go...the actual count...never trust Mass Shooting Tracker....

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


2015....4

2014....2

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985...0

1984...2

1983...0

1982...1


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Here's What the Mainstream Media WON'T Tell You About Mass Shootings - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 million gun owners in this nation.
> 
> The “Mass Shooting Tracker” counts any incident where four or more people are shot, whether fatally or not, as a mass shooting. For 2015 so far, this tracker counts 294 incidents — of those, there are names for only 45 of the shooters, which leads me to believe the others are gang or crime related. But let’s assume for a moment all 294 shooters were actually law-abiding, legal gun owners.
> 
> That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 249 or .00025 percent of the gun-owning population are potential mass shooters.
> 
> Of course, now the gun control activists are out in force. Any person who legally owns a gun must be a certified nut bag.
> 
> It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.
> 
> 
> But some perspective is needed.
> 
> According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, 375 individuals have been killed during a mass shooting in 2015.
> 
> Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?
> 
> Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.




Here is the casualty count from the Mother JOnes research...I love Mother JOnes.....an anti gun, left wing site.......and the left wing gun grabbers have to deny their facts.....

Here is the left wing news source...Mother Jones...they hate guns, ..they too have tracked mass shootings...and here is what they found...

If you go to the link they list each year and the specific mass shootings with details....injured, killed, weapons used.....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation*



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 73.

*2015......37*
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

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 drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760

Deaths from mass shootings 2015..... 37*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 72 deaths by mass shooters.

How many guns are there in American hands....357 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 13 million.


----------



## ChrisL

Rustic said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for outlawing all guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...
> 
> So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind nat and his comrade joe... They have an strange obsession of penis. They are Constantly bringing it up in their posts.
> Very strange...
> Lol
Click to expand...


They probably want to outlaw penises too  . .  because theirs are too small.    Lol.


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, with respect....that is not accurate....322 is the number for all rifles combined....AR-15s in particular are responsible for incredibly less than that...if that on any given year.......
Click to expand...

My bad...
But to be fair progressives don't know the difference between any firearm... They stick their head in the sand when you try to point that out to them… It's a lost cause. LOL


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's What the Mainstream Media WON'T Tell You About Mass Shootings - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 million gun owners in this nation.
> 
> The “Mass Shooting Tracker” counts any incident where four or more people are shot, whether fatally or not, as a mass shooting. For 2015 so far, this tracker counts 294 incidents — of those, there are names for only 45 of the shooters, which leads me to believe the others are gang or crime related. But let’s assume for a moment all 294 shooters were actually law-abiding, legal gun owners.
> 
> That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 249 or .00025 percent of the gun-owning population are potential mass shooters.
> 
> Of course, now the gun control activists are out in force. Any person who legally owns a gun must be a certified nut bag.
> 
> It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.
> 
> 
> But some perspective is needed.
> 
> According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, 375 individuals have been killed during a mass shooting in 2015.
> 
> Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.
> 
> Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?
> 
> Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the casualty count from the Mother JOnes research...I love Mother JOnes.....an anti gun, left wing site.......and the left wing gun grabbers have to deny their facts.....
> 
> Here is the left wing news source...Mother Jones...they hate guns, ..they too have tracked mass shootings...and here is what they found...
> 
> If you go to the link they list each year and the specific mass shootings with details....injured, killed, weapons used.....
> 
> US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
> 
> Sooooo....
> 
> 
> US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
> 
> *US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation*
> 
> 
> 
> How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 73.
> 
> *2015......37*
> 2014..... 9
> 2013..... 36
> 2012..... 72
> 2011..... 19
> 2010....9
> 2009...39
> 2008...18
> 2007...54
> 2006...21
> 2005...17
> 2004...5
> 2003...7
> 2002...not listed by mother jones
> 2001...5
> 2000...7
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 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 drowning*.....3,391*
> Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760
> 
> Deaths from mass shootings 2015..... 37*
> 
> *Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*
> 
> 
> Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 72 deaths by mass shooters.
> 
> How many guns are there in American hands....357 million.
> 
> How many people carry guns for self defense...over 13 million.
Click to expand...

That's why anyone with any common sense can see so-called "gun" violence is a non-issue… Criminal control is what needs to be done.
It's not about "gun" control… It's about "control" in general - like forcing stupid ass Obama care on everybody. Progressives can never change their spots - control freaks all. Lol


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic

ChrisL said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for outlawing all guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...
> 
> So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind nat and his comrade joe... They have an strange obsession of penis. They are Constantly bringing it up in their posts.
> Very strange...
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They probably want to outlaw penises too  . .  because theirs are too small.    Lol.
Click to expand...

Heres a story for nat and comrade joe... On their obsessive, compulsive subject they are always posting about.

Redback spider bites Australian man on penis - BBC News


----------



## ChrisL

Rustic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for outlawing all guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...
> 
> So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind nat and his comrade joe... They have an strange obsession of penis. They are Constantly bringing it up in their posts.
> Very strange...
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They probably want to outlaw penises too  . .  because theirs are too small.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heres a story for nat and comrade joe... On their obsessive, compulsive subject they are always posting about.
> 
> Redback spider bites Australian man on penis - BBC News
Click to expand...


Yeesh, that is disgusting and very disturbing.  Lol.


----------



## Rustic

ChrisL said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...
> 
> So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind nat and his comrade joe... They have an strange obsession of penis. They are Constantly bringing it up in their posts.
> Very strange...
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They probably want to outlaw penises too  . .  because theirs are too small.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heres a story for nat and comrade joe... On their obsessive, compulsive subject they are always posting about.
> 
> Redback spider bites Australian man on penis - BBC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeesh, that is disgusting and very disturbing.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Is that "assaulting" the weapon or the other way around...


----------



## ChrisL

Rustic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...
> 
> So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind nat and his comrade joe... They have an strange obsession of penis. They are Constantly bringing it up in their posts.
> Very strange...
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They probably want to outlaw penises too  . .  because theirs are too small.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heres a story for nat and comrade joe... On their obsessive, compulsive subject they are always posting about.
> 
> Redback spider bites Australian man on penis - BBC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeesh, that is disgusting and very disturbing.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that "assaulting" the weapon or the other way around...
Click to expand...


Hard to say.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?



It's not explicitly protected the way speech, religion, and TRTBA are, but there is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to stop people from smoking.

Of course you Khmer Rouge types are openly attacking the right of speech, religion, and TRTBA anyway. Ending the BOR is job one for democrats.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not explicitly protected the way speech, religion, and TRTBA are, but there is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to stop people from smoking.
> 
> Of course you Khmer Rouge types are openly attacking the right of speech, religion, and TRTBA anyway. Ending the BOR is job one for democrats.
Click to expand...




There is no right to smoke in the constitution.  Again, you say nothing worthwhile, just lies. Nowhere do I fight against freedom of speech, religion or anything else, internut.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.



Wait stupid, you think drug dealers face murder charges when their customers OD? 

You're sure are dumb, gnat..


----------



## Uncensored2008

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie.
> Why does it not bother you that you have to lie to make your points?
> Why does it not bother you that you can only make your points at the expense of innocent children?



Gnat marked your post "funny," which means he is a troll and has no integrity or intent to engage in rational discussions.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> There is no right to smoke in the constitution.  Again, you say nothing worthwhile, just lies. Nowhere do I fight against freedom of speech, religion or anything else, internut.



It's a lie that the freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution? 

You should go back to using your meds.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right to smoke in the constitution.  Again, you say nothing worthwhile, just lies. Nowhere do I fight against freedom of speech, religion or anything else, internut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a lie that the freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution?
> 
> You should go back to using your meds.
Click to expand...


No, it's a lie what you said about me, dummy.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> Why does it not bother you that you have to lie to make your points?
> Why does it not bother you that you can only make your points at the expense of innocent children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnat marked your post "funny," which means he is a troll and has no integrity or intent to engage in rational discussions.
Click to expand...


Well, honestly, neither do you have any integrity.  You are just as fucked up and nasty and miserable, only on the other side of the spectrum, comrade.    Lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> No, it's a lie what you said about me, dummy.



You know Chris, I did assume you would jump in bed with Gnat, given your views on socialism and abortion.

But I was wrong about what position you were taking on this issue.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a lie what you said about me, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Chris, I did assume you would jump in bed with Gnat, given your views on socialism and abortion.
> 
> But I was wrong about what position you were taking on this issue.
Click to expand...


Because you are an extremist nut bar.  I am for freedom.  Freedom for one to decide the path of one's own life, whether other people "agree" with it or not.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Because you are an extremist nut bar.



Oh *I AM? *



> I am for freedom.  Freedom for one to decide the path of one's own life, whether other people "agree" with it or not.



It's good that you're sensible regarding the right to protect oneself.

Still, what you advocated in confiscating the earnings of others to give to those the state views as more "needy" precludes your claim of being for freedom.

I can link back to the thread.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are an extremist nut bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh *I AM? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for freedom.  Freedom for one to decide the path of one's own life, whether other people "agree" with it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good that you're sensible regarding the right to protect oneself.
> 
> Still, what you advocated in confiscating the earnings of others to give to those the state views as more "needy" precludes your claim of being for freedom.
> 
> I can link back to the thread.
Click to expand...


Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.


----------



## hazlnut

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......




They should sue the store the knowingly sold the guns to the mother of the seriously disturbed boy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.



Then you just go grab a pile of that which belongs to "us" Comrade, and test that theory..



Oh, and the only one who excused corporate welfare was you.  I have no love for GM, Tesla, Solar City, et al.

I pointed out that you were lying about Walmart, as you leftists love to do, but for actual corporate welfare, I did and do condemn it.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you just go grab a pile of that which belongs to "us" Comrade, and test that theory..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the only one who excused corporate welfare was you.  I have no love for GM, Tesla, Solar City, et al.
> 
> I pointed out that you were lying about Walmart, as you leftists love to do, but for actual corporate welfare, I did and do condemn it.
Click to expand...


We already do that here in this country, comrade.  You pay taxes and they go into the "pool."   

Walmart is amongst the worst of the worst.


----------



## Uncensored2008

hazlnut said:


> They should sue the store the knowingly sold the guns to the mother of the seriously disturbed boy.



DERP

Haznonuts, you're dumb as a bag of dogshit, but less pleasant to be around.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you just go grab a pile of that which belongs to "us" Comrade, and test that theory..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the only one who excused corporate welfare was you.  I have no love for GM, Tesla, Solar City, et al.
> 
> I pointed out that you were lying about Walmart, as you leftists love to do, but for actual corporate welfare, I did and do condemn it.
Click to expand...


The average taxpayer pays about $36 a year to support the poor, but thousands of dollars to support corporate welfare.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> We already do that here in this country, comrade.  You pay taxes and they go into the "pool."



Uh, no sparky, it sure doesn't.



> Walmart is amongst the worst of the worst.



ThinkProgress told you so!

Funny how you could never point to even one cent of federal money paid to Walmart as "welfare."

"WAHHHHH Mexicans with 17 children working as help get FOODSTAMPS.." 

There is a reason I noticed that you're fucking stupid, Chris....


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> The average taxpayer pays about $36 a year to support the poor, but thousands of dollars to support corporate welfare.



Yeah, more leftist lies.

BUT if there were truth to your claim, why do you lie about which corporations get welfare?

Walmart doesn't and never did.

GE does though, Obama paid the relocation costs for them to move their light bulb manufacturing to China. As a leftist, the stupid fuck was intent on getting rid of incandescent bulbs, so he used taxpayer funds to ship American jobs to China.

But that's okay with you leftists. Now Walmart giving a job to a woman who has 4 kids, THAT pisses you scumbags off.


----------



## Rustic

ChrisL said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you just go grab a pile of that which belongs to "us" Comrade, and test that theory..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the only one who excused corporate welfare was you.  I have no love for GM, Tesla, Solar City, et al.
> 
> I pointed out that you were lying about Walmart, as you leftists love to do, but for actual corporate welfare, I did and do condemn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer pays about $36 a year to support the poor, but thousands of dollars to support corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

Thanks to career politicians on both sides isle equally...


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Let me explain it to you.....



Okay, "Explain" does not mean,"repeating the same unfounded contentions in an attempt to distract attention from the point."


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain it to you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, "Explain" does not mean,"repeating the same unfounded contentions in an attempt to distract attention from the point."
Click to expand...

Deflection noted


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Funny how Joe thinks babies born outside the womb and killed on the table are Fetuses. Sociopaths feel that way.



fetuses still aren't babies, and less than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks (when the fetuses STILL aren't viable.) 

Next lame argument?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?



No, and there isn't one to own guns, either.  In fact, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the constitution.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer pays about $36 a year to support the poor, but thousands of dollars to support corporate welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, more leftist lies.
> 
> BUT if there were truth to your claim, why do you lie about which corporations get welfare?
> 
> Walmart doesn't and never did.
> 
> GE does though, Obama paid the relocation costs for them to move their light bulb manufacturing to China. As a leftist, the stupid fuck was intent on getting rid of incandescent bulbs, so he used taxpayer funds to ship American jobs to China.
> 
> But that's okay with you leftists. Now Walmart giving a job to a woman who has 4 kids, THAT pisses you scumbags off.
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to you, but it was Bush that created the plans on getting rid of the light bulb.  I'm not familiar with what Obama did as you claim, but he didn't put the wheels into motion.


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and there isn't one to own guns, either.  In fact, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the constitution.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

kwc57 said:


> Fetuses aren't children? That's your argument? Seriously? Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb? On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb? Did you actually care for it once it was born? What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types? Why do you hate humanity so much? Did your mother beat you as a child?



Reported for attacking families.  

My mom had several miscarriages.  She didn't consider that the same as a baby she actualy had and raised.  We don't hold funerals over tampons, we put them in the medical waste bin.  

Next lame argument?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

hazlnut said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should sue the store the knowingly sold the guns to the mother of the seriously disturbed boy.
Click to expand...


Really?  So you are a gun store owner and a woman walks in to buy a gun.  You do the legal background check and it's okay for her to purchase a gun.  HTF do you know anything about her family or children?


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children? That's your argument? Seriously? Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb? On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb? Did you actually care for it once it was born? What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types? Why do you hate humanity so much? Did your mother beat you as a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reported for attacking families.
> 
> My mom had several miscarriages.  She didn't consider that the same as a baby she actualy had and raised.  We don't hold funerals over tampons, we put them in the medical waste bin.
> 
> Next lame argument?
Click to expand...

You have a right to your own opinion, but it's just that - your opinion...
I personally think the federal government should stay out of all things personal that includes family matters, money matters and energy matters...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain it to you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, "Explain" does not mean,"repeating the same unfounded contentions in an attempt to distract attention from the point."
Click to expand...



That is what you do joe....you always project your mental problems onto others.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ChrisL said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are an extremist nut bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh *I AM? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for freedom.  Freedom for one to decide the path of one's own life, whether other people "agree" with it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good that you're sensible regarding the right to protect oneself.
> 
> Still, what you advocated in confiscating the earnings of others to give to those the state views as more "needy" precludes your claim of being for freedom.
> 
> I can link back to the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.
Click to expand...


1.
financial assistance, as tax breaks or subsidies,given by the government to profit-makingcompanies, especially large corporations.

Origin of corporate welfare
1990-95, Americanism

the definition of corporate welfare

Walmart and others have never received subsides like those green companies did.  Walmart and profit producing companies do pay taxes.  When or if they get a tax break, that is also considered corporate welfare even though it's not welfare at all.  Taking less from people (or companies) is not welfare in my opinion.  

According to the definition above, the term was created during the Clinton administration.  Imagine that!  So if we end up with President Trump, and he lowers payroll taxes, will you then be receiving welfare???


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and there isn't one to own guns, either.  In fact, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the constitution.
Click to expand...



Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain it to you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, "Explain" does not mean,"repeating the same unfounded contentions in an attempt to distract attention from the point."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you do joe....you always project your mental problems onto others.
Click to expand...

...and apparently manhood problems too...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children? That's your argument? Seriously? Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb? On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb? Did you actually care for it once it was born? What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types? Why do you hate humanity so much? Did your mother beat you as a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reported for attacking families.
> 
> My mom had several miscarriages.  She didn't consider that the same as a baby she actualy had and raised.  We don't hold funerals over tampons, we put them in the medical waste bin.
> 
> Next lame argument?
Click to expand...



I wonder if she wishes she had just one more.........?


----------



## Rustic

Ray From Cleveland said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should sue the store the knowingly sold the guns to the mother of the seriously disturbed boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  So you are a gun store owner and a woman walks in to buy a gun.  You do the legal background check and it's okay for her to purchase a gun.  HTF do you know anything about her family or children?
Click to expand...

Control freaks are silly in that way...


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and there isn't one to own guns, either.  In fact, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.
Click to expand...

He lives in his moms basement...


----------



## turtledude

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion
> 
> In my opinion the risk is worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Parents of the kids slaughtered at Sandy Hook disagree.   Let's see what a jury decides after they see the autopsy and crime scene photos.
Click to expand...

banoids want to appeal to emotion

the case won't make it to trial.  the theory that the AR-15 has no legitimate civilian use is a loser as a matter of law


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> Well, we have amply heard from the right wingers and their "love" of guns....a love mostly based on fear of the bad-ass government placing them into "relocation camps"...and a need to show how truly macho they can be on a message board.....
> 
> But there is a simple thought to ponder in everyone's privacy of one's own conscience:
> 
> Which side of this pro or anti assault weapons' argument would Adam Lanza be supporting???



as  a retired federal prosecutor I can answer that question.  violent criminals invariably support banning citizens from having guns.  Assholes like you want to make the lives of violent criminals safer


----------



## turtledude

nat4900 said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> we can sue Hillary for Benghazi. What do you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a grown up what fucking sense "suing Hillary for Benghazi" would make......Keep your hatred of Hillary to yourself....it has no place on this thread.
Click to expand...



Cankles lovers are Banoids.  Banoid mentality goes hand to hand with collectivism


----------



## turtledude

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on admit it.....you got an erection just typing all those "2850 FPS" bullshit.......LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on admit it, you've never been able to get an erection, which is why you attack the civil rights of others. To satiate the rage born of frustration that dominates your pathetic life.
Click to expand...



banoids are generally feminine 

in other words, born female or castrated as a male


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless point.
> 
> Most people who support the second amendment do not have illusions of fighting the government. They just want to protect their right to defend themselves and their families.
> 
> Why would any of you have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending yourselves from EXACTLY WHAT?????
> 
> A burglar? A bear? A salesman?...............The point here is NOT to take away all your cute little guns....the point is that assault-style-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-in-shortest-time kind of weapons have NO place in a civilized society.
Click to expand...


Please define "assault style" but first look at this post

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

And it doesn't matter how many rounds a gun can fire.  A gun is nothing but an inanimate object 

and fyi if it weren't for weapons you'd find society a lot less civilized.  Human beings are a very violent species after all


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care if they agree or disagree.
> 
> People whose kids drown in pools might disagree that pools are safe too.
> 
> None of that has anything to do with me. I don't have kids and I am not going to go on a shooting spree so if I own one gun or one hundred it's none of anyone's fucking business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what you say now, but every mass shooter stated out as a malignant narcissist...
Click to expand...

No they started out as whining idiots who blamed everyone else for their problems.  Like you


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Lets try to decipher slow-witted, right wingers' "logic"......
> 
> Any.....and I mean ANY drug dealer could pose a "defense" when caught by stating, "Hey, I only sell the stuff, how people who buy it use it, is THEIR concern, not mine...."
> 
> Now, the same slow-witted, right wingers will counter....."But, NO, drugs are illegal and THAT is why a drug dealer should/must be arrested and charged..."
> 
> The counter argument is blown apart, when we return to the original argument posed by this thread; i.e., a judge found enough evidence to conclude that a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer should be allowed to proceed and that case law would set a precedent against the indiscriminate sale of weapons which could basically be labeled, WMDs since their only true purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.


All drugs should be legal 
It's not your or anyone else's business what a person does with his or her body

And guns do not kill people.  I've owned guns since I was 16 and none of them have killed anyone


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for one crucial difference. Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.
> 
> This thread (for those slow-witted, right wingers) is NOT about stopping  the sale of any guns....BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)
Click to expand...

If yo don't like the second amendment then by all means try to repeal it


----------



## Skull Pilot

hazlnut said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should sue the store the knowingly sold the guns to the mother of the seriously disturbed boy.
Click to expand...

And just how would a clerk in a gun shop know anything about the children of his customers?


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and there isn't one to own guns, either.  In fact, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the constitution.
Click to expand...

It says "arms"

it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms.  Firearm is a synonym for gun

Get it?


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless point.
> 
> Most people who support the second amendment do not have illusions of fighting the government. They just want to protect their right to defend themselves and their families.
> 
> Why would any of you have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending yourselves from EXACTLY WHAT?????
> 
> A burglar? A bear? A salesman?...............The point here is NOT to take away all your cute little guns....the point is that assault-style-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-in-shortest-time kind of weapons have NO place in a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please define "assault style" but first look at this post
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> And it doesn't matter how many rounds a gun can fire.  A gun is nothing but an inanimate object
> 
> and fyi if it weren't for weapons you'd find society a lot less civilized.  Human beings are a very violent species after all
Click to expand...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a* liberal left wing nut job* went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence  Oops,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read your own links, Stupid?
> 
> _Anders Breivik, a *rightwing extremist *who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle *"multiculturalism"* in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society._
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you do realize that "liberal" is an actual set of beliefs, and "not just something I can throw at anyone I don't like".
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe? Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what? No repeat offenders. I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips. Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain. In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, dude, do you like watch snuff films when you aren't here?
> 
> The problem with your approach is that it only takes effect AFTER the nutjob has killed a pre-school full of children.  That really doesn't help the parents of the kids who are still dead.
> 
> Banning guns, or at least limiting their sale to RESPONSIBLE people, would keep that from happening altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think that guns are just going to disappear.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Not at all, with my 2nd amendment right, the liberals CANT take my guns away.  If they try, they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.  It wont be easy either.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Rustic said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless point.
> 
> Most people who support the second amendment do not have illusions of fighting the government. They just want to protect their right to defend themselves and their families.
> 
> Why would any of you have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending yourselves from EXACTLY WHAT?????
> 
> A burglar? A bear? A salesman?...............The point here is NOT to take away all your cute little guns....the point is that assault-style-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-in-shortest-time kind of weapons have NO place in a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please define "assault style" but first look at this post
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> And it doesn't matter how many rounds a gun can fire.  A gun is nothing but an inanimate object
> 
> and fyi if it weren't for weapons you'd find society a lot less civilized.  Human beings are a very violent species after all
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The deadliest place on Earth.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Mikeoxenormous

ChrisL said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for outlawing all guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's a rational question......The answer is* NO...NO....NO*......All that this thread was aiming at is the banning of sale of such guns that are STRICTLY for either making some idiots feel more manly.....and/or to kill as many people in the least amount of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...wrong...they are great weapons for civilian defense, competition, plinking, collecting and tinkering.....and since 3,750,000 of them are in private hands and not used for any kind of crime.....there is no reason to ban them.....and if the police and military have them...we need them too...the Germans tried allowing only the police and military to have guns....and they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children all through Europe....and just across our border with Mexico.....only the police and military get rifles...and the government and the drug cartels are murdering Mexican citizens in the thousands every year...
> 
> So yes...we need AR-15s for all sorts of reasons...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind nat and his comrade joe... They have an strange obsession of penis. They are Constantly bringing it up in their posts.
> Very strange...
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They probably want to outlaw penises too  . .  because theirs are too small.    Lol.
Click to expand...

Not at all, they want to outlaw the size of penises, because of liberal fairness.  Real men have big stuff between their legs, while a liberal has a toothpick and peanuts.  It isn't FAIR, so the liberals need to cut us down to size.  All I can say to that "Bring it on, you liberal pansies".


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.



No, guy, I went to Catholic Schools.  Which is why I want to level every church and burn every copy of the Bible.

But back to the point.  The Militia Amendment says nothing about "guns". It just says that thepeople have the right to bear arms within a well regulated militia.

It does not say, "The right of crazy people to own machine guns shall not be infringed".  Because that would be stupid.

Now, here's the problem with applying the reasoning of slave rapists who shit in a chamber pot to the modern world. In their day, you used the same gun to hunt game, , show up for a war, genocide the shit out of native Americans who just wanted to keep their land, or intimidate your slaves into not running away.

Today, we have very specialized guns for doing the things on that list we still do.  Professionals use weapons of war that civilians just plain old should not have You aren't going to being your squirrel gun to a war and you shouldn't be using an AR-15 to hunt squirrels. 



Skull Pilot said:


> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms. Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?



Arms could also mean swords. It can also mean nukes.   You see, that's where the "Well Regulated" part of that comes in. Clearly, we don't want neighbor McGrouchy to have a nuke. But if we take your "logic" to it's extreme, why shouldn't he?  I mean, if your argument is "We done needs our arms to overthrow the government", then clearly a nuke is going to be more useful to do that than an AR-15.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Not at all, with my 2nd amendment right, the liberals CANT take my guns away. If they try, they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers. It wont be easy either.



The day private gun ownership is outlawed, you will meekly turn in your gun.


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I went to Catholic Schools.  Which is why I want to level every church and burn every copy of the Bible.
> 
> But back to the point.  The Militia Amendment says nothing about "guns". It just says that thepeople have the right to bear arms within a well regulated militia.
> 
> It does not say, "The right of crazy people to own machine guns shall not be infringed".  Because that would be stupid.
> 
> Now, here's the problem with applying the reasoning of slave rapists who shit in a chamber pot to the modern world. In their day, you used the same gun to hunt game, , show up for a war, genocide the shit out of native Americans who just wanted to keep their land, or intimidate your slaves into not running away.
> 
> Today, we have very specialized guns for doing the things on that list we still do.  Professionals use weapons of war that civilians just plain old should not have You aren't going to being your squirrel gun to a war and you shouldn't be using an AR-15 to hunt squirrels.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms. Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms could also mean swords. It can also mean nukes.   You see, that's where the "Well Regulated" part of that comes in. Clearly, we don't want neighbor McGrouchy to have a nuke. But if we take your "logic" to it's extreme, why shouldn't he?  I mean, if your argument is "We done needs our arms to overthrow the government", then clearly a nuke is going to be more useful to do that than an AR-15.
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, an ar15 is not military grade... It's just a sporting rifle. Dumbass


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I went to Catholic Schools.  Which is why I want to level every church and burn every copy of the Bible.
> 
> But back to the point.  The Militia Amendment says nothing about "guns". It just says that thepeople have the right to bear arms within a well regulated militia.
> 
> It does not say, "The right of crazy people to own machine guns shall not be infringed".  Because that would be stupid.
> 
> Now, here's the problem with applying the reasoning of slave rapists who shit in a chamber pot to the modern world. In their day, you used the same gun to hunt game, , show up for a war, genocide the shit out of native Americans who just wanted to keep their land, or intimidate your slaves into not running away.
> 
> Today, we have very specialized guns for doing the things on that list we still do.  Professionals use weapons of war that civilians just plain old should not have You aren't going to being your squirrel gun to a war and you shouldn't be using an AR-15 to hunt squirrels.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms. Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms could also mean swords. It can also mean nukes.   You see, that's where the "Well Regulated" part of that comes in. Clearly, we don't want neighbor McGrouchy to have a nuke. But if we take your "logic" to it's extreme, why shouldn't he?  I mean, if your argument is "We done needs our arms to overthrow the government", then clearly a nuke is going to be more useful to do that than an AR-15.
Click to expand...

Yes they should... Bitch


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, with my 2nd amendment right, the liberals CANT take my guns away. If they try, they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers. It wont be easy either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day private gun ownership is outlawed, you will meekly turn in your gun.
Click to expand...

Come and try to take my weapons away Joe, find out....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I went to Catholic Schools.  Which is why I want to level every church and burn every copy of the Bible.
> 
> But back to the point.  The Militia Amendment says nothing about "guns". It just says that thepeople have the right to bear arms within a well regulated militia.
> 
> It does not say, "The right of crazy people to own machine guns shall not be infringed".  Because that would be stupid.
> 
> Now, here's the problem with applying the reasoning of slave rapists who shit in a chamber pot to the modern world. In their day, you used the same gun to hunt game, , show up for a war, genocide the shit out of native Americans who just wanted to keep their land, or intimidate your slaves into not running away.
> 
> Today, we have very specialized guns for doing the things on that list we still do.  Professionals use weapons of war that civilians just plain old should not have You aren't going to being your squirrel gun to a war and you shouldn't be using an AR-15 to hunt squirrels.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms. Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms could also mean swords. It can also mean nukes.   You see, that's where the "Well Regulated" part of that comes in. Clearly, we don't want neighbor McGrouchy to have a nuke. But if we take your "logic" to it's extreme, why shouldn't he?  I mean, if your argument is "We done needs our arms to overthrow the government", then clearly a nuke is going to be more useful to do that than an AR-15.
Click to expand...

Talk about a BIGOT to people of religious background.  Why are liberals Bigots, when they say they are for the common person?


----------



## JoeB131

Rustic said:


> Too bad you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, an ar15 is not military grade... It's just a sporting rifle.\



Then why does it look JUST LIKE the M16 I used to carry in the Army?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I went to Catholic Schools.  Which is why I want to level every church and burn every copy of the Bible.
> 
> But back to the point.  The Militia Amendment says nothing about "guns". It just says that thepeople have the right to bear arms within a well regulated militia.
> 
> It does not say, "The right of crazy people to own machine guns shall not be infringed".  Because that would be stupid.
> 
> Now, here's the problem with applying the reasoning of slave rapists who shit in a chamber pot to the modern world. In their day, you used the same gun to hunt game, , show up for a war, genocide the shit out of native Americans who just wanted to keep their land, or intimidate your slaves into not running away.
> 
> Today, we have very specialized guns for doing the things on that list we still do.  Professionals use weapons of war that civilians just plain old should not have You aren't going to being your squirrel gun to a war and you shouldn't be using an AR-15 to hunt squirrels.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms. Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms could also mean swords. It can also mean nukes.   You see, that's where the "Well Regulated" part of that comes in. Clearly, we don't want neighbor McGrouchy to have a nuke. But if we take your "logic" to it's extreme, why shouldn't he?  I mean, if your argument is "We done needs our arms to overthrow the government", then clearly a nuke is going to be more useful to do that than an AR-15.
Click to expand...

Now you see the liberal Joe with the Red Herring argument.  Assault Rifle is a weapon that can be selected to put out a spray of bullets like a machine gun, did you know that Joe.  StG 44 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> MP 43, MP 44, and StG 44 were different designations for what was essentially the same rifle with minor updates in production. The variety in nomenclatures resulted from the complicated bureaucracy in Nazi Germany. Developed from the Mkb 42(H) "machine carbine," the StG44 combined the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun, and automatic rifle.


 The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon that has to have the trigger pulled each time to have the bullet spent.  Want to get technical Joe, I just did with your sorry ass.  The Ruger 10/22 is a semi-automatic weapon that has to have the trigger pulled each time to have the bullet spent.  Liberals are the dumbest people on Earth.


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, an ar15 is not military grade... It's just a sporting rifle.\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it look JUST LIKE the M16 I used to carry in the Army?
Click to expand...

 Just because it looks like one does not mean it's one, then you should know the difference between the two are like night and day. Come on Joe quit being a pussy… Lol


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, an ar15 is not military grade... It's just a sporting rifle.\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it look JUST LIKE the M16 I used to carry in the Army?
Click to expand...

Why do liberal look  JUST LIKE  normal everyday US citizens?  Because loony lefties can look like the rest of US but are totally insane.  Once Trump gets in, I am going to make a suggestion that the insane asylums be opened again.  That way, America could start being safe again.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Talk about a BIGOT to people of religious background. Why are liberals Bigots, when they say they are for the common person?



Yes, I am totally bigoted against BRONZE AGE superstitions
[

that have been debunked by modern science. 



andaronjim said:


> Come and try to take my weapons away Joe, find out....



You gun whacks talk smack all day, but will meekly comply when the day comes.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a BIGOT to people of religious background. Why are liberals Bigots, when they say they are for the common person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am totally bigoted against BRONZE AGE superstitions
> [
> 
> that have been debunked by modern science.
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come and try to take my weapons away Joe, find out....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gun whacks talk smack all day, but will meekly comply when the day comes.
Click to expand...

Come on Joe if you want to talk the talk, lets walk the walk, come take my guns away..  otherwise you are dickless.


----------



## JoeB131

Rustic said:


> Just because it looks like one does not mean it's one, then you should know the difference between the two are like night and day. Come on Joe quit being a pussy… Lol



The only difference is that the selector switch doesn't go to full auto.  

It still fires the same 5.56 MM round that makes a nice big hole when it hits a preschooler.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Come on Joe if you want to talk the talk, lets walk the walk, come take my guns away.. otherwise you are dickless.



Guy, I leave the professional stuff to professionals.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children? That's your argument? Seriously? Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb? On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb? Did you actually care for it once it was born? What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types? Why do you hate humanity so much? Did your mother beat you as a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reported for attacking families.
> 
> My mom had several miscarriages.  She didn't consider that the same as a baby she actualy had and raised.  We don't hold funerals over tampons, we put them in the medical waste bin.
> 
> Next lame argument?
Click to expand...

Joe, shame that your mother didn't have one extra miscarriage........


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it looks like one does not mean it's one, then you should know the difference between the two are like night and day. Come on Joe quit being a pussy… Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that the selector switch doesn't go to full auto.
> 
> It still fires the same 5.56 MM round that makes a nice big hole when it hits a preschooler.
Click to expand...

Meaning the ar15 is like every other sporting rifle... Dumbass
 .22 cal... Lol


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it looks like one does not mean it's one, then you should know the difference between the two are like night and day. Come on Joe quit being a pussy… Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that the selector switch doesn't go to full auto.
> 
> It still fires the same 5.56 MM round that makes a nice big hole when it hits a preschooler.
Click to expand...

And a 12 gauge shotgun could of done the same, should they ban that also?  How about the liberal leftwing nutjob that took semi auto pistols into the Virginia Tech University and shot up kids with the 9mm.  Should they ban that?  How about crock-pot bombs that killed people in Boston, should they ban crock-pots?  Once again, Joe more kids are killed by unplanned parenthood, should they ban that?  Oh yeah, children born outside of the womb are just Fetuses, just like those kids in Sandy Hook?
How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job


> *#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people*. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.
> *#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse.* Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others
> *#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs.* They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.
> *#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love* and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don't actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do


----------



## nat4900

This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....

1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.

2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.


Really now, at least we are NOT cowering in fear about something that "MIGHT" happen 100 years from now.  You know the temperature 'MIGHT" rise another 1/10th of a degree in 100 years, and the sea levels "MIGHT" rise 1 inch.  Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## Iceweasel

nat4900 said:


> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.


The fear and racism is all yours. You fooled nobody.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.


By the way, those liberal Southern White Democrats were the ones worried about Negroes and White Republicans which were hung by those Democrats.  Now LIE to us once again.


> *#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs.* They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> Really now, at least we are NOT cowering in fear about something that "MIGHT" happen 100 years from now. You know the temperature 'MIGHT" rise another 1/10th of a degree in 100 years, and the sea levels "MIGHT" rise 1 inch. Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.




Go massage your guns, nitwit......LOL


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really now, at least we are NOT cowering in fear about something that "MIGHT" happen 100 years from now. You know the temperature 'MIGHT" rise another 1/10th of a degree in 100 years, and the sea levels "MIGHT" rise 1 inch. Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go massage your guns, nitwit......LOL
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really now, at least we are NOT cowering in fear about something that "MIGHT" happen 100 years from now. You know the temperature 'MIGHT" rise another 1/10th of a degree in 100 years, and the sea levels "MIGHT" rise 1 inch. Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go massage your guns, nitwit......LOL
Click to expand...


We know the left is lying about your belief in global warming anyway.  If you actually believed in it, the last thing you would do is use global warming as a divisive political hammer to win elections.  If you really thought it was like a meteor that is going to hit the earth, you'd reach out and say OMG, we have to put politics aside, this is cataclysmic.  

With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power and working on cleaner fossil fuel solutions that would have huge impacts versus things like wind and solar that are decades or longer from producing significant portions of our energy.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.



Negroes with guns scare you, do they grand wizard?


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I went to Catholic Schools.  Which is why I want to level every church and burn every copy of the Bible.
> 
> But back to the point.  The Militia Amendment says nothing about "guns". It just says that thepeople have the right to bear arms within a well regulated militia.
> 
> It does not say, "The right of crazy people to own machine guns shall not be infringed".  Because that would be stupid.
> 
> Now, here's the problem with applying the reasoning of slave rapists who shit in a chamber pot to the modern world. In their day, you used the same gun to hunt game, , show up for a war, genocide the shit out of native Americans who just wanted to keep their land, or intimidate your slaves into not running away.
> 
> Today, we have very specialized guns for doing the things on that list we still do.  Professionals use weapons of war that civilians just plain old should not have You aren't going to being your squirrel gun to a war and you shouldn't be using an AR-15 to hunt squirrels.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms. Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms could also mean swords. It can also mean nukes.   You see, that's where the "Well Regulated" part of that comes in. Clearly, we don't want neighbor McGrouchy to have a nuke. But if we take your "logic" to it's extreme, why shouldn't he?  I mean, if your argument is "We done needs our arms to overthrow the government", then clearly a nuke is going to be more useful to do that than an AR-15.
Click to expand...


So you see guns are included so what's your problem?

And it's not illegal for anyone to own the mechanical components to make a nuclear bomb it is however impossible for a civilian to legally obtain fissionable material which is clearly not included in the accepted definitions of the term "arms"

And nowhere in the second amendment does it say anything about overthrowing the government.  The intention  was so people could not only protect themselves and their communities by forming a militia but so they could also protect themselves from a government that would deny them the rights they deemed inalienable

No one I or even you for that matter know that owns a gun has any plans to overthrow the government


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, an ar15 is not military grade... It's just a sporting rifle.\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it look JUST LIKE the M16 I used to carry in the Army?
Click to expand...


OOOH it looks scary?

It's just a semiauto like any other semi auto it is NOT military grade


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it looks like one does not mean it's one, then you should know the difference between the two are like night and day. Come on Joe quit being a pussy… Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that the selector switch doesn't go to full auto.
> 
> It still fires the same 5.56 MM round that makes a nice big hole when it hits a preschooler.
Click to expand...


So what?

I have a mini 30 that fires a 6.8 mm round and it has never been used to shoot a person
In fact the vast majority of any weapons in the hands of law abiding people will never be used to kill anyone


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, an ar15 is not military grade... It's just a sporting rifle.\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it look JUST LIKE the M16 I used to carry in the Army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OOOH it looks scary?
> 
> It's just a semiauto like any other semi auto it is NOT military grade
Click to expand...


----------



## Skull Pilot

andaronjim said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children? That's your argument? Seriously? Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb? On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb? Did you actually care for it once it was born? What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types? Why do you hate humanity so much? Did your mother beat you as a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reported for attacking families.
> 
> My mom had several miscarriages.  She didn't consider that the same as a baby she actualy had and raised.  We don't hold funerals over tampons, we put them in the medical waste bin.
> 
> Next lame argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe, shame that your mother didn't have one extra miscarriage........
Click to expand...


The best part of him ran down her leg and got lapped up by the dog


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it looks like one does not mean it's one, then you should know the difference between the two are like night and day. Come on Joe quit being a pussy… Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that the selector switch doesn't go to full auto.
> 
> It still fires the same 5.56 MM round that makes a nice big hole when it hits a preschooler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> I have a mini 30 that fires a 6.8 mm round and it has never been used to shoot a person
> In fact the vast majority of any weapons in the hands of law abiding people will never be used to kill anyone
Click to expand...

Joe can't find the facts and his mother's basement...
Millions of people own millions of ARs and millions of them have never killed anybody… lol


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really now, at least we are NOT cowering in fear about something that "MIGHT" happen 100 years from now. You know the temperature 'MIGHT" rise another 1/10th of a degree in 100 years, and the sea levels "MIGHT" rise 1 inch. Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go massage your guns, nitwit......LOL
Click to expand...

are you offended?  You seem to be very angry about me talking about your religious beliefs.


----------



## hadit

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for one crucial difference. Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.
> 
> This thread (for those slow-witted, right wingers) is NOT about stopping  the sale of any guns....BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)
Click to expand...

Why are gun controllers obsessed with male genitalia?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

It all goes back to liberal parenting.  When a liberal parent doesn't allow their children to play war or cops and robbers, then those kids grow up mentally challenged.  They don't understand that people kill people, not inanimate objects(Tools) which have no initiative to harm anyone, but the person wielding the Tool, does and those people are liberals(because liberals hate all humans - see sociopath #3).  It has always been the plan of fundamentally transforming America, but as long as there is the 2nd amendment, the socialists/communists/Marxists/liberals/progressives, cannot completely take over America, because 100,000,000 Americans with guns wont allow it.  Joe the pansie, and Nitwit9400 who want so much to not have to think, and just have the government GIVE them food, healthcare, free phone, and STUFF, would bend over backwards, to allow the government to SUPPRESS the rest of US.  It really rankles them knowing that NORMAL "folks" who work hard, live with moral values, cherish life, just wont allow them to get what they really want.  Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......I get it....you anti-gun morons went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so reading plain english is beyond your ability....please...let the grown ups talk.........go to your room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I went to Catholic Schools.  Which is why I want to level every church and burn every copy of the Bible.
> 
> But back to the point.  The Militia Amendment says nothing about "guns". It just says that thepeople have the right to bear arms within a well regulated militia.
> 
> It does not say, "The right of crazy people to own machine guns shall not be infringed".  Because that would be stupid.
> 
> Now, here's the problem with applying the reasoning of slave rapists who shit in a chamber pot to the modern world. In their day, you used the same gun to hunt game, , show up for a war, genocide the shit out of native Americans who just wanted to keep their land, or intimidate your slaves into not running away.
> 
> Today, we have very specialized guns for doing the things on that list we still do.  Professionals use weapons of war that civilians just plain old should not have You aren't going to being your squirrel gun to a war and you shouldn't be using an AR-15 to hunt squirrels.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms. Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms could also mean swords. It can also mean nukes.   You see, that's where the "Well Regulated" part of that comes in. Clearly, we don't want neighbor McGrouchy to have a nuke. But if we take your "logic" to it's extreme, why shouldn't he?  I mean, if your argument is "We done needs our arms to overthrow the government", then clearly a nuke is going to be more useful to do that than an AR-15.
Click to expand...

So amend the amendment if you don't like what it says.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Uncensored2008 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> Why does it not bother you that you have to lie to make your points?
> Why does it not bother you that you can only make your points at the expense of innocent children?
> 
> 
> 
> Gnat marked your post "funny," which means he is a troll and has no integrity or intent to engage in rational discussions.
Click to expand...

Like all the other anti-gun loons.


----------



## M14 Shooter

hazlnut said:


> They should sue the store the knowingly sold the guns to the mother of the seriously disturbed boy.


Said no rational person, ever.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.




Yes....democrats are the very first gun banners in the country...they banned gun ownership from their slaves....and passed gun control in the 1960s as they were trying to murder Martin Luther King Jr.  denying him a permit to carry a gun.....


----------



## 2aguy

it is interesting that the only people in the discussion of guns that talk about them in a sexual way are the ones who want them banned......


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> it is interesting that the only people in the discussion of guns that talk about them in a sexual way are the ones who want them banned......


Must be envy??


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power




Want to buy some choice (and very cheap) properties in Chernobyl???


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> Negroes with guns scare you, do they grand wizard?




Once again, you MISSED the point....but expected from nitwits.......


----------



## nat4900

Obviously there is an inordinate amount of fear among right wingers; terrible way to live, clutching their guns, thumping their bibles and scared shit-less of "darkies".......Whenever there's a mass shooting by some deranged bastard, they flood the gun stores to get MORE guns and ammunition.

How many of these gun-loving right wingers on here alone are just one step away from a pissed off moment to become yet another Lanza?


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Obviously there is an inordinate amount of fear among right wingers; terrible way to live, clutching their guns, thumping their bibles and scared shit-less of "darkies".......Whenever there's a mass shooting by some deranged bastard, they flood the gun stores to get MORE guns and ammunition.
> 
> How many of these gun-loving right wingers on here alone are just one step away from a pissed off moment to become yet another Lanza?


You're a Joe sock aren't you?


----------



## nat4900

Skull Pilot said:


> You're a Joe sock aren't you?




Whatever the above means...LOL (I guess its an "inside joke" among slow-witted right wingers)


----------



## nat4900

kaz said:


> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power



Here's another tidbit for you to ponder, Kaz...(and tell us how many people have died because of wind or solar energy)

Remember 3 Mile Island? Almost 40 years have passed......and

_The only independent study, by Dr. Stephen Wing et al., found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the destroyed Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.

This supports the premise that far more radiation escaped from TMI than has been acknowledged by the authorities. Within hours of the beginning of the nuclear disaster, onsite radiation monitors went off scale and were shut down because radiation levels exceeded their measurement capacity._


----------



## kwc57

ChrisL said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are an extremist nut bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh *I AM? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for freedom.  Freedom for one to decide the path of one's own life, whether other people "agree" with it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good that you're sensible regarding the right to protect oneself.
> 
> Still, what you advocated in confiscating the earnings of others to give to those the state views as more "needy" precludes your claim of being for freedom.
> 
> I can link back to the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.
Click to expand...


Just curious.......are we free to NOT pay taxes if we don't want to?  If we are not, then we are forced to by the government.  That is not freedom my friend.


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to buy some choice (and very cheap) properties in Chernobyl???
Click to expand...


And if you compare Chernobyl to what you say global warming is going to do to the entire earth, you reject it.  And that was Russia where you have no control and their nuclear technology is way behind ours.  Again demonstrating you are lying, you don't believe in global warming.  It's just a hammer to you


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negroes with guns scare you, do they grand wizard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you MISSED the point....but expected from nitwits.......
Click to expand...


I got the point.  You were being a dick


----------



## 2aguy

Valerie said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around
> 
> hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away
> 
> YOU protect your weapons when you are present
> 
> fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. *All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.*
> 
> *FIREARMS*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
> Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
> Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
> Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
> Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
> Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother._
> 
> *MAGAZINES*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
> 10 30-round .223 magazines
> 6 30-round 9mm magazines
> 6 30-round 10mm magazines
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
> Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
> One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
> Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
> Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
> Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets
> *
> AMMUNITION*
> 
> *Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*
> 
> 20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
> 301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
> 116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
> 90 rounds of 10mm ammunition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary._
> 
> *Found in Lanza Home:*
> 
> Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
> White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
> Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
> Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
> Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
> Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
> Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
> Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
> Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
> Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
> Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
> Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
> Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
> Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
> 80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
> 31 .22-caliber rounds
> Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
> Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
> Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
> Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
> Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
> Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
> Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
> Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
> Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
> Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
> Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
> Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
> 130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
> Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
> Two Win 9mm rounds
> Small box of miscellaneous rounds
> 
> *When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine.  When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.*
> 
> What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary
Click to expand...




And since you brought up alleged Assault rifles....here is the rational basis test that you fail...

Assault Weapon Bans: Can They Survive Rational Basis Scrutiny? by Clayton E. Cramer :: SSRN

VII. AW Bans Fail Rational Basis Analysis 

The evidence is clear that AW bans fail rational basis scrutiny because AWs are seldom criminally misused relative to more readily accessible weapons. 

The disproportionate minimum sentences in California’s AWCA law relative to much more dangerous weapons suggests a panic reaction that is hardly rational.

The comments of journalists, elected officials, and gun control activists reveal bigotry that makes Colorado Amendment 2 seem pretty calm by comparison.

*Even the courts are reduced to arguing that perceived benefit as opposed to actual benefit is a sufficient reason to uphold bans. *

One of the points made in the paper......rape and owning a hand grenade carry less of a sentence than an illegal assault weapon not used in a crime.

*V. Sentence Length As An Indicator of Irrationality *

Looking at the minimum sentences provided for AW violations relative to other crimes gives a pretty clear picture of what the legislatures considered the level of public safety hazard associated with AWs. 

*California’s minimum sentence for possession of an unlicensed machine gun56 is substantially shorter than the minimum sentence for sale or importation of an “assault weapon.”57 Even more curiously, possession of a hand grenade is even a lighter sentence than either.58 (This is a prohibition on functional hand grenades; possession or importation of a “metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade” is prohibited elsewhere.59) *

*Adding to this strange disparity, the minimum sentence for forcible rape60 is less than the minimum sentence for import or transfer of an “assault weapon.” *

Clearly, the California legislature considers “assault weapons” a greater public safety hazard than machine guns, grenades, or rapists, if the severity of the sentence is any indicator. This suggests a panic reaction, not a rational decision.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to buy some choice (and very cheap) properties in Chernobyl???
Click to expand...

Of course the libtard would take an example of when Socialists are in charge of nuclear power plant.  Would you like to point to another socialist failure?  Like Obama and Hope and Change?


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a Joe sock aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the above means...LOL (I guess its an "inside joke" among slow-witted right wingers)
Click to expand...


It's a common message board term I guess you're just too fucking stupid to know that


----------



## kaz

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another tidbit for you to ponder, Kaz...(and tell us how many people have died because of wind or solar energy)
> 
> Remember 3 Mile Island? Almost 40 years have passed......and
> 
> _The only independent study, by Dr. Stephen Wing et al., found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the destroyed Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.
> 
> This supports the premise that far more radiation escaped from TMI than has been acknowledged by the authorities. Within hours of the beginning of the nuclear disaster, onsite radiation monitors went off scale and were shut down because radiation levels exceeded their measurement capacity._
Click to expand...

That was generations of nuclear technology ago and very isolated on even a national scale, must less global.  Your ignorance aside, you compare that to the global cataclysm you claim gobal worming and it's like saying you don't want to own a car because you heard someone burned their hand on a hot steering wheel left in the sun.

You are again just showing completely clearly that your claim of what global warming is going to do to the earth is a total lie, you don't believe it.

Well, sure, cities will drown, the earth will bake, but 35 years ago in a tiny percent of Pennsylvania "
"_lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher_"


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another tidbit for you to ponder, Kaz...(and tell us how many people have died because of wind or solar energy)
> 
> Remember 3 Mile Island? Almost 40 years have passed......and
> 
> _The only independent study, by Dr. Stephen Wing et al., found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the destroyed Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.
> 
> This supports the premise that far more radiation escaped from TMI than has been acknowledged by the authorities. Within hours of the beginning of the nuclear disaster, onsite radiation monitors went off scale and were shut down because radiation levels exceeded their measurement capacity._
Click to expand...

And not one person died from 3 Mile island.  Oh you didn't know that, that the fail systems of a capitalist power plant did exactly what it was supposed to do?  Nitwit4900, if you keep this up, you are going to prove to everyone, even the liberals that socialism sucks.


----------



## kaz

andaronjim said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to buy some choice (and very cheap) properties in Chernobyl???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the libtard would take an example of when Socialists are in charge of nuclear power plant.  Would you like to point to another socialist failure?  Like Obama and Hope and Change?
Click to expand...


Nice point.  The failure of socialism is a constant justification to them for more socialism, isn't it?


----------



## alpine

ChrisL said:


> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.



If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.

And this is a case especially when that gun manufacturer "intentionally" allows this to happen, as a marketing pitch...


----------



## kaz

andaronjim said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another tidbit for you to ponder, Kaz...(and tell us how many people have died because of wind or solar energy)
> 
> Remember 3 Mile Island? Almost 40 years have passed......and
> 
> _The only independent study, by Dr. Stephen Wing et al., found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the destroyed Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.
> 
> This supports the premise that far more radiation escaped from TMI than has been acknowledged by the authorities. Within hours of the beginning of the nuclear disaster, onsite radiation monitors went off scale and were shut down because radiation levels exceeded their measurement capacity._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And not one person died from 3 Mile island.  Oh you didn't know that, that the fail systems of a capitalist power plant did exactly what it was supposed to do?  Nitwit4900, if you keep this up, you are going to prove to everyone, even the liberals that socialism sucks.
Click to expand...


I was in management at GE Nuclear Energy.  Three mile island triggered massive advancements in nuclear safety.  And that we haven't has a blip in the 35 years since shows that.

Yet, it's so shallow that because of that hysterical fear, liberals will let the oceans boil, the land bake and cities submerge and reject nuclear with a waive of their hand.

It's clearly a lie, they don't believe global warming is what they say they think


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

alpine said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.
> 
> And this is a case especially when that gun manufacturer "intentionally" allows this to happen, as a marketing pitch...
Click to expand...

Did you know that if you convert a rifle to fully automatic that it is a Felony Offense?  Now what LAW ABIDING CITIZEN would want to convert their rifle to fully automatic?  A liberal who hates Fetus's in or out of the womb, people who breathe CO2, drive cars other than electric, live in a house(not an apartment), their parents(who brought their liberal sorry asses into the world), and anyone who just wants to live their lives in happiness.  That is who liberal leftwing nutjobs who modify their rifles would LOVE to kill.

See sociopath #3


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I hate to break it to you, but it was Bush that created the plans on getting rid of the light bulb.  I'm not familiar with what Obama did as you claim, but he didn't put the wheels into motion.



Bush was no peach, but it was Obama who handed his dear friend and "labor czar" Jeffery Immelt billions of tax payer money to move American jobs to China.

EDITORIAL: Obama’s twisty light-bulb logic
GE Closes Last Incandescent Light Bulb Plant, Jobs Sent to China | Heartlander Magazine


----------



## Uncensored2008

alpine said:


> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.



A bottle can be, fill it with gas and put a rag in it.

Stupidity, it's what makes a leftist.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

kaz said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another tidbit for you to ponder, Kaz...(and tell us how many people have died because of wind or solar energy)
> 
> Remember 3 Mile Island? Almost 40 years have passed......and
> 
> _The only independent study, by Dr. Stephen Wing et al., found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the destroyed Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.
> 
> This supports the premise that far more radiation escaped from TMI than has been acknowledged by the authorities. Within hours of the beginning of the nuclear disaster, onsite radiation monitors went off scale and were shut down because radiation levels exceeded their measurement capacity._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And not one person died from 3 Mile island.  Oh you didn't know that, that the fail systems of a capitalist power plant did exactly what it was supposed to do?  Nitwit4900, if you keep this up, you are going to prove to everyone, even the liberals that socialism sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in management at GE Nuclear Energy.  Three mile island triggered massive advancements in nuclear safety.  And that we haven't has a blip in the 35 years since shows that.
> 
> Yet, it's so shallow that because of that hysterical fear, liberals will let the oceans boil, the land bake and cities submerge and reject nuclear with a waive of their hand.
> 
> It's clearly a lie, they don't believe global warming is what they say they think
Click to expand...

Now I am going to give you the liberal argument about nuclear and how unsafe it I.  Look at Japan, what happened there, oh my....

Of course Japan is a Volcanic Island that has Earthquakes frequently(are those caused by climate change?)  So the Japanese in the infinite wisdom decided to build a nuclear reactor to survive a Cat 8 Earthquake.  That reactor did survive the quake but the tsunami that came after that, was what ruined the reactor and its fallout.  If there never was a tsunami that reactor wouldn't of leaked radiation. 

The Earth is a dangerous place, during any given day, there is somewhere on the planet an event that will harm people.  Just a shame that those events don't happen to more liberals.  Soon the Earth would be a better place.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Obviously there is an inordinate amount of fear among right wingers; terrible way to live, clutching their guns, thumping their bibles and scared shit-less of "darkies".......Whenever there's a mass shooting by some deranged bastard, they flood the gun stores to get MORE guns and ammunition.



Watch out troll, there is a "right winger with a gun" under your bed.....



> How many of these gun-loving right wingers on here alone are just one step away from a pissed off moment to become yet another Lanza?




Statistically zero, you cowardly little retard.


----------



## alpine

andaronjim said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.
> 
> And this is a case especially when that gun manufacturer "intentionally" allows this to happen, as a marketing pitch...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that if you convert a rifle to fully automatic that it is a Felony Offense?  Now what LAW ABIDING CITIZEN would want to convert their rifle to fully automatic?  A liberal who hates Fetus's in or out of the womb, people who breathe CO2, drive cars other than electric, live in a house(not an apartment), their parents(who brought their liberal sorry asses into the world), and anyone who just wants to live their lives in happiness.  That is who liberal leftwing nutjobs who modify their rifles would LOVE to kill.
> 
> See sociopath #3
Click to expand...



Thats is the point.

It is ILLEGAL to convert a rifle to auto.

And when gun manufacturers push a rifle out to the market, which is "intentionally" easily convertible, thats like writing on the box "well, this button will convert this rifle to auto, but it is 'illegal' to push it, you know   ...."

Grown up people, adults, who knows the meaning of "responsibility" would agree this is a clear responsibility.

If you are a 20 year old, who thinks the world is created for your self pleasures and involve no responsibility whatsoever, you would think otherwise naturally.........


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> And when gun manufacturers push a rifle out to the market, which is "intentionally" easily convertible...


You cannot prove this to be the case.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alpine said:


> [
> Thats is the point.
> 
> It is ILLEGAL to convert a rifle to auto.



Then your anti-gun law solves the issue



> And when gun manufacturers push a rifle out to the market, which is "intentionally" easily convertible, thats like writing on the box "well, this button will convert this rifle to auto, but it is 'illegal' to push it, you know   ...."



And you can show manufacturers who do this?

Oh, you're just lying, as you anti-liberty types like to do.



> Grown up people, adults, who knows the meaning of "responsibility" would agree this is a clear responsibility.
> 
> If you are a 20 year old, who thinks the world is created for your self pleasures and involve no responsibility whatsoever, you would think otherwise naturally.........



Responsibility includes not lying through your fucking teeth - so you are not in the running.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

alpine said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.
> 
> And this is a case especially when that gun manufacturer "intentionally" allows this to happen, as a marketing pitch...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that if you convert a rifle to fully automatic that it is a Felony Offense?  Now what LAW ABIDING CITIZEN would want to convert their rifle to fully automatic?  A liberal who hates Fetus's in or out of the womb, people who breathe CO2, drive cars other than electric, live in a house(not an apartment), their parents(who brought their liberal sorry asses into the world), and anyone who just wants to live their lives in happiness.  That is who liberal leftwing nutjobs who modify their rifles would LOVE to kill.
> 
> See sociopath #3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thats is the point.
> 
> It is ILLEGAL to convert a rifle to auto.
> 
> And when gun manufacturers push a rifle out to the market, which is "intentionally" easily convertible, thats like writing on the box "well, this button will convert this rifle to auto, but it is 'illegal' to push it, you know   ...."
> 
> Grown up people, adults, who knows the meaning of "responsibility" would agree this is a clear responsibility.
> 
> If you are a 20 year old, who thinks the world is created for your self pleasures and involve no responsibility whatsoever, you would think otherwise naturally.........
Click to expand...

First off if the 20 year old had Conservative parents, he/she would "*KNOW*" the difference between right and wrong, good vs evil.  Now here is a test for the liberal on what is an assault rifle.  Is it the picture on the left or the picture on the right? 


    Choose wisely....


----------



## alpine

Uncensored2008 said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bottle can be, fill it with gas and put a rag in it.
> 
> Stupidity, it's what makes a leftist.
Click to expand...



Wrong recipe idiot, do what you said, and watch yourself burning...


If the bottle manufacturer was specifically designing bottles to allow molotovs to have more cluster impact (which would increase its deadliness) and if the manufacturer use this as a marketing pitch rather than trying to prevent it, to have more profit, then yes of course, they would have responsibility for sure...

How hard is it to understand the distinction? 
You gotta be a real bone head for all this not to be able to penetrate into your head...


----------



## alpine

Uncensored2008 said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Thats is the point.
> 
> It is ILLEGAL to convert a rifle to auto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your anti-gun law solves the issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when gun manufacturers push a rifle out to the market, which is "intentionally" easily convertible, thats like writing on the box "well, this button will convert this rifle to auto, but it is 'illegal' to push it, you know   ...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can show manufacturers who do this?
> 
> Oh, you're just lying, as you anti-liberty types like to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grown up people, adults, who knows the meaning of "responsibility" would agree this is a clear responsibility.
> 
> If you are a 20 year old, who thinks the world is created for your self pleasures and involve no responsibility whatsoever, you would think otherwise naturally.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Responsibility includes not lying through your fucking teeth - so you are not in the running.
Click to expand...




Then why they introduced the blocks in those receivers to prevent people from doing that, after they realized how they fucked it all up, faggot.....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

alpine said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bottle can be, fill it with gas and put a rag in it.
> 
> Stupidity, it's what makes a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong recipe idiot, do what you said, and watch yourself burning...
> 
> 
> If the bottle manufacturer was specifically designing bottles to allow molotovs to have more cluster impact (which would increase its deadliness) and if the manufacturer use this as a marketing pitch rather than trying to prevent it, to have more profit, then yes of course, they would have responsibility for sure...
> 
> How hard is it to understand the distinction?
> You gotta be a real bone head for all this not to be able to penetrate into your head...
Click to expand...

Does Obama have responsibility for the deaths of the 4 Americans in Benghazi?  The death of a border agent killed by real assault rifles that Eric Holder allowed to be sold to Mexican Drug dealers?  The death of the young girl shot in front of her father in San Fran Sicko?  The employee's gunned down the Married Muslims extremists that were on the terror watch list? 
Dumbasses like you only want to ban guns, not the people who actually go out and kill.  When the government strips all the guns away from the citizens, then those citizens become sheeple. 

Live Free or Die Trying.


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> If the bottle manufacturer was specifically designing bottles to allow molotovs to have more cluster impact (which would increase its deadliness) and if the manufacturer use this as a marketing pitch rather than trying to prevent it, to have more profit, then yes of course, they would have responsibility for sure...


Unfortunately for you, none of this applies to any manufacturer of AR15-based rifles.


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the bottle manufacturer was specifically designing bottles to allow molotovs to have more cluster impact (which would increase its deadliness) and if the manufacturer use this as a marketing pitch rather than trying to prevent it, to have more profit, then yes of course, they would have responsibility for sure...
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, none of this applies to any manufacturer of AR15-based rifles.
Click to expand...



Oh yeah

Why they have blocks in the receivers now then...


EXPLAIN.....


Let em explain;

BECAUSE; it was tooo dam fucking easy to convert these rifles to auto
And they made good profit because of that 
So they didnt bother to do anything about that

Everybody pays the price of their irresponsible behaviors. 
Dont matter who you are, 
Dont matter what you are, 
If you fucked it up, you pay up...
Its that simple...


----------



## kaz

andaronjim said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another tidbit for you to ponder, Kaz...(and tell us how many people have died because of wind or solar energy)
> 
> Remember 3 Mile Island? Almost 40 years have passed......and
> 
> _The only independent study, by Dr. Stephen Wing et al., found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the destroyed Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.
> 
> This supports the premise that far more radiation escaped from TMI than has been acknowledged by the authorities. Within hours of the beginning of the nuclear disaster, onsite radiation monitors went off scale and were shut down because radiation levels exceeded their measurement capacity._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And not one person died from 3 Mile island.  Oh you didn't know that, that the fail systems of a capitalist power plant did exactly what it was supposed to do?  Nitwit4900, if you keep this up, you are going to prove to everyone, even the liberals that socialism sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in management at GE Nuclear Energy.  Three mile island triggered massive advancements in nuclear safety.  And that we haven't has a blip in the 35 years since shows that.
> 
> Yet, it's so shallow that because of that hysterical fear, liberals will let the oceans boil, the land bake and cities submerge and reject nuclear with a waive of their hand.
> 
> It's clearly a lie, they don't believe global warming is what they say they think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now I am going to give you the liberal argument about nuclear and how unsafe it I.  Look at Japan, what happened there, oh my....
> 
> Of course Japan is a Volcanic Island that has Earthquakes frequently(are those caused by climate change?)  So the Japanese in the infinite wisdom decided to build a nuclear reactor to survive a Cat 8 Earthquake.  That reactor did survive the quake but the tsunami that came after that, was what ruined the reactor and its fallout.  If there never was a tsunami that reactor wouldn't of leaked radiation.
> 
> The Earth is a dangerous place, during any given day, there is somewhere on the planet an event that will harm people.  Just a shame that those events don't happen to more liberals.  Soon the Earth would be a better place.
Click to expand...


Yes, but global warming is something they claim to believe will be cataclysmic everywhere.  Also, the US not building nuclear reactors has zero to do with Japan or Russia, they don't stop building because we don't build them.  Yet according to them, they'd rather New York, Miami and other American cities drown because in a tiny section of Pennsylvania leukemia rates were 2 to 10 times higher 35 years ago


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the bottle manufacturer was specifically designing bottles to allow molotovs to have more cluster impact (which would increase its deadliness) and if the manufacturer use this as a marketing pitch rather than trying to prevent it, to have more profit, then yes of course, they would have responsibility for sure...
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, none of this applies to any manufacturer of AR15-based rifles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah
> Why they have blocks in the receivers now then...
Click to expand...

Good thing someone here told you about those receiver blocks, else you'd have no clue.
In any case, nothing here illustrates an intentional design to facilitate full-auto conversion, nor marketing to that effect.
Why does it not bother you that you have to lie to make a point?


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> And a 12 gauge shotgun could of done the same, should they ban that also? How about the liberal leftwing nutjob that took semi auto pistols into the Virginia Tech University and shot up kids with the 9mm. Should they ban that? How about crock-pot bombs that killed people in Boston, should they ban crock-pots? Once again, Joe more kids are killed by unplanned parenthood, should they ban that? Oh yeah, children born outside of the womb are just Fetuses, just like those kids in Sandy Hook?



To answer you spew of crazy in order....

Lanza could not have killed as many people with a 12 gauge as he did with the AR-15

Cho wasn't "left wing".  I'm not sure how you can apply left wing to people who had no political interests at all.  BUt, um, yeah, they should have banned him from buying a gun.  If VA Tech had to privately tutor him because his scary and erratic behavior made the other students uncomfortable, he should have been on a list. 

But shit, we can't even get people on the No Fly list banned from buying guns. 

You can't kill someone with a crockpot the minute you walk out of the store with it. 

Fetuses still aren't people. I've known people who've lost kids and people who have had abortions and people who've had miscarriages.  The only one  who lose their shit are the ones who lose actual kids.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> So amend the amendment if you don't like what it says.



No, we just need a court to read it the way it was read from 1787 to 2008.  Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap, not a problem.


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> And not one person died from 3 Mile island. Oh you didn't know that, that the fail systems of a capitalist power plant did exactly what it was supposed to do? Nitwit4900, if you keep this up, you are going to prove to everyone, even the liberals that socialism sucks.




You're funny......dumber than a bucket of piss....but funny, nonetheless......Keep it up, we could use the levity.


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a Joe sock aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the above means...LOL (I guess its an "inside joke" among slow-witted right wingers)
Click to expand...


It means they think that I'm hiding behind every screen name that mocks their stupidity.   I enjoy the space I occupy in their heads.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a 12 gauge shotgun could of done the same, should they ban that also? How about the liberal leftwing nutjob that took semi auto pistols into the Virginia Tech University and shot up kids with the 9mm. Should they ban that? How about crock-pot bombs that killed people in Boston, should they ban crock-pots? Once again, Joe more kids are killed by unplanned parenthood, should they ban that? Oh yeah, children born outside of the womb are just Fetuses, just like those kids in Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer you spew of crazy in order....
> 
> Lanza could not have killed as many people with a 12 gauge as he did with the AR-15
> 
> Cho wasn't "left wing".  I'm not sure how you can apply left wing to people who had no political interests at all.  BUt, um, yeah, they should have banned him from buying a gun.  If VA Tech had to privately tutor him because his scary and erratic behavior made the other students uncomfortable, he should have been on a list.
> 
> But shit, we can't even get people on the No Fly list banned from buying guns.
> 
> You can't kill someone with a crockpot the minute you walk out of the store with it.
> 
> Fetuses still aren't people. I've known people who've lost kids and people who have had abortions and people who've had miscarriages.  The only one  who lose their shit are the ones who lose actual kids.
Click to expand...




> Lanza could not have killed as many people with a 12 gauge as he did with the AR-15


 Liar.


> Cho wasn't "left wing".


 anyone who hates people who just want to live their lives in peace and happiness is a liberal, Cho shot up kids because they weren't miserable like him.


> But shit, we can't even get people on the No Fly list banned from buying guns.


 And now that same Federal Government is in charge of OUR healthcare, way to go dumbass.
Fetuses still aren't people. 





> at one time you only said kidney bean sized babies weren't people, now you are saying babies born outside the womb aren't people?
> 
> See sociopath #3


----------



## Contumacious

Contumacious said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peoples right to keep (own) and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> The militia does not have any rights the PEOPLE hold the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
> 
> in March 2007 the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote for the 2-1 majority:
> 
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court precedents can be overridden.  Now that Scalia is being ass raped by demons in Hell, we can get this stupidity overturned pretty quickly.
> 
> Oops, the Militia Amendment is about Militias again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how when homosexual marriages(no rights given in the constitution) were decided by the supreme court a liberal didn't call it stupidity, yet when DC protection law(2nd amendment) was decided by the supreme court, as typical of the hypocrites. they call it stupidity.  Joe, you definitely need a time out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Americans , who are FREE PEOPLE, have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bears arms to defend their lives and for other lawful purposes
> 
> The right is protected PRIMARILY by the Constitution because no authority was conferred upon the federal government to regulate firearms. Since no authority was conferred  then the right is also protected by the NINTH AMENDMENT. Our right to bear was was EMPHASIZED by the SECOND AMENDMENT.
> 
> 
> This distinction is important because the scumbags are acting as if the 2A allows fedgov to regulate firearms - it doesn't. It is also not true that the COMMERCE CLAUSE allows fedgov the authority  to criminalize the possession of firearms in certain cases. It doesn't. SCOTUS rulings to that effect are bald face USURPATIONS and must be ignored.
> 
> As free people Americans also have a Constitutional (1787) right protected by the main document and the NINTH AMENDMENT to pursue happiness . Therefore  adults can consensually agree to get fucked in the ass. To each his own.
> 
> We don't want them infringing on our rights so lets not infringe on theirs.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Americans , who are FREE PEOPLE, have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bears arms to defend their lives and for other lawful purposes

The right is protected PRIMARILY by the Constitution because no authority was conferred upon the federal government to regulate firearms. Since no authority was conferred then the right is also protected by the NINTH AMENDMENT. Our right to bear was was EMPHASIZED by the SECOND AMENDMENT.


This distinction is important because the scumbags are acting as if the 2A allows fedgov to regulate firearms - it doesn't. It is also not true that the COMMERCE CLAUSE allows fedgov the authority to criminalize the possession of firearms in certain cases. It doesn't. SCOTUS rulings to that effect are bald face USURPATIONS and must be ignored.

.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a 12 gauge shotgun could of done the same, should they ban that also? How about the liberal leftwing nutjob that took semi auto pistols into the Virginia Tech University and shot up kids with the 9mm. Should they ban that? How about crock-pot bombs that killed people in Boston, should they ban crock-pots? Once again, Joe more kids are killed by unplanned parenthood, should they ban that? Oh yeah, children born outside of the womb are just Fetuses, just like those kids in Sandy Hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer you spew of crazy in order....
> 
> Lanza could not have killed as many people with a 12 gauge as he did with the AR-15
> 
> Cho wasn't "left wing".  I'm not sure how you can apply left wing to people who had no political interests at all.  BUt, um, yeah, they should have banned him from buying a gun.  If VA Tech had to privately tutor him because his scary and erratic behavior made the other students uncomfortable, he should have been on a list.
> 
> But shit, we can't even get people on the No Fly list banned from buying guns.
> 
> You can't kill someone with a crockpot the minute you walk out of the store with it.
> 
> Fetuses still aren't people. I've known people who've lost kids and people who have had abortions and people who've had miscarriages.  The only one  who lose their shit are the ones who lose actual kids.
Click to expand...








Bullshit.  A 12 gauge shotgun is FAR more lethal at close range than an AR-15.  Hell, if he had gone in their with a samurai sword he probably would have killed more.  You are so incredibly stupid it is beyond belief.  You truly don't know shit from shinola.


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> It means they think that I'm hiding behind every screen name that mocks their stupidity. I enjoy the space I occupy in their heads.




Good for you.......Right wing nitwits need to be mocked for their inanities and ignorant rants....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

911 tape: 'Shoot him again!' husband tells wife hiding from home intruder


> The recording of a 911 call made during a home invasion in Georgia reveals a chilling scene in which a husband coaches his wife -- home alone with her twin 9-year-old children -- to shoot a determined intruder.
> 
> 
> The intruder used a crowbar to bust into the house last Friday and at first intended to rob the suburban Atlanta home in Loganville but shifted his focus to hunting down Melinda Herman and her son and daughter, Walton County investigators told NBC station WXIA in Atlanta.
> 
> The family had fled through three locked doors, into a bathroom and then to an upstairs crawl space, but the intruder busted the doors open to stalk the family, police said.


 I personally prefer the .45 auto, when you shoot anyone with that caliber weapon, you don't have to shoot more than once, but like with this woman who wanted to defend herself it took 5 shots to finally stop the liberal.  If the teachers of Sandy Hook had a weapon, Adam might of shot 1 person before being killed himself.  But once again, liberals don't want this woman or young kids to be defended because then THEY(liberals) can rape, kill or murder anyone they want.  As long as woman and law abiding citizens have the 2nd amendment, liberals will end up dead, and I wont shed a tear.


----------



## M14 Shooter

andaronjim said:


> I personally prefer the .45 auto, when you shoot anyone with that caliber weapon, you don't have to shoot more than once, but like with this woman who wanted to defend herself it took 5 shots to finally stop the liberal.  If the teachers of Sandy Hook had a weapon, Adam might of shot 1 person before being killed himself.  But once again, liberals don't want this woman or young kids to be defended because then THEY(liberals) can rape, kill or murder anyone they want.  As long as woman and law abiding citizens have the 2nd amendment, liberals will end up dead, and I wont shed a tear.


Gun free zones facilitate the anti-gun loon agenda in that they make sure those who seek to kill large numbers of helpless individuals have access to same.   
Blood of innocents = means to push their mindless agenda.


----------



## westwall

andaronjim said:


> 911 tape: 'Shoot him again!' husband tells wife hiding from home intruder
> 
> 
> 
> The recording of a 911 call made during a home invasion in Georgia reveals a chilling scene in which a husband coaches his wife -- home alone with her twin 9-year-old children -- to shoot a determined intruder.
> 
> 
> The intruder used a crowbar to bust into the house last Friday and at first intended to rob the suburban Atlanta home in Loganville but shifted his focus to hunting down Melinda Herman and her son and daughter, Walton County investigators told NBC station WXIA in Atlanta.
> 
> The family had fled through three locked doors, into a bathroom and then to an upstairs crawl space, but the intruder busted the doors open to stalk the family, police said.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally prefer the .45 auto, when you shoot anyone with that caliber weapon, you don't have to shoot more than once, but like with this woman who wanted to defend herself it took 5 shots to finally stop the liberal.  If the teachers of Sandy Hook had a weapon, Adam might of shot 1 person before being killed himself.  But once again, liberals don't want this woman or young kids to be defended because then THEY(liberals) can rape, kill or murder anyone they want.  As long as woman and law abiding citizens have the 2nd amendment, liberals will end up dead, and I wont shed a tear.
Click to expand...







Bullcrap.  Real life isn't the movies.  Bad guys often need to be shot multiple times before they stop.  Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about either.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

westwall said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 911 tape: 'Shoot him again!' husband tells wife hiding from home intruder
> 
> 
> 
> The recording of a 911 call made during a home invasion in Georgia reveals a chilling scene in which a husband coaches his wife -- home alone with her twin 9-year-old children -- to shoot a determined intruder.
> 
> 
> The intruder used a crowbar to bust into the house last Friday and at first intended to rob the suburban Atlanta home in Loganville but shifted his focus to hunting down Melinda Herman and her son and daughter, Walton County investigators told NBC station WXIA in Atlanta.
> 
> The family had fled through three locked doors, into a bathroom and then to an upstairs crawl space, but the intruder busted the doors open to stalk the family, police said.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally prefer the .45 auto, when you shoot anyone with that caliber weapon, you don't have to shoot more than once, but like with this woman who wanted to defend herself it took 5 shots to finally stop the liberal.  If the teachers of Sandy Hook had a weapon, Adam might of shot 1 person before being killed himself.  But once again, liberals don't want this woman or young kids to be defended because then THEY(liberals) can rape, kill or murder anyone they want.  As long as woman and law abiding citizens have the 2nd amendment, liberals will end up dead, and I wont shed a tear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap.  Real life isn't the movies.  Bad guys often need to be shot multiple times before they stop.  Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about either.
Click to expand...

Guess you don't know what a hollow point(made sure the liberal knew what I was talking about) .45 caliber bullet would do to a human body?  I am ex military, the 9mm wont stop a liberal doped up on PCP, while a .45 will blow his arm off if I hit him in the shoulder.  Want to debate some more.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a Joe sock aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the above means...LOL (I guess its an "inside joke" among slow-witted right wingers)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means they think that I'm hiding behind every screen name that mocks their stupidity.   I enjoy the space I occupy in their heads.
Click to expand...


It's just you 2 use the same wording in every post right down to the penis obsession and the term "darkies"


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So amend the amendment if you don't like what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we just need a court to read it the way it was read from 1787 to 2008.  Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap, not a problem.
Click to expand...

During a good bit of that time, kids could take guns with them to school so they could hunt on their way home.  Is it that to which you are wishing to return?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

hadit said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So amend the amendment if you don't like what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we just need a court to read it the way it was read from 1787 to 2008.  Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap, not a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During a good bit of that time, kids could take guns with them to school and so they could hunt on their way home.  Is it that to which you are wishing to return?
Click to expand...

once again a conservative child would know good vs evil, right from wrong, with liberals and their immorality, liberal kids end up shooting others or themselves.  Maybe you libs should start trying the conservative way, you know because you guys are "For the Children".  Yeah, sure , my ass you are.


----------



## nat4900

Wel


Skull Pilot said:


> It's just you 2 use the same wording in every post right down to the penis obsession and the term "darkies"



Well, there may be a message there for you and your ilk, don't you think?


----------



## hadit

nat4900 said:


> Wel
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just you 2 use the same wording in every post right down to the penis obsession and the term "darkies"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there may be a message there for you and your ilk, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Would that message be that the two of you (assuming there are actually two of you) are obsessed with male genitalia?


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Obviously there is an inordinate amount of fear among right wingers; terrible way to live, clutching their guns, thumping their bibles and scared shit-less of "darkies".......Whenever there's a mass shooting by some deranged bastard, they flood the gun stores to get MORE guns and ammunition.
> 
> How many of these gun-loving right wingers on here alone are just one step away from a pissed off moment to become yet another Lanza?


Whatever the reason whoever buys whatever, I'm sure you have no clue as to their reasons for buying whatever and it is neither your or the federal governments business what anyone buys... 
The "deranged bastards" are fucked up control freaks like yourself... Lol


----------



## nat4900

Rustic said:


> *Whatever* the reason whoever buys *whatever*, I'm sure you have no clue as to their reasons for buying *whatever* and it is neither your or the federal governments business what anyone buys...




WOW, yet another wanna-be right wing Shakespearean prose writer ...
Such prose, such command of the language...such fucked up-ness.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With global warming, it's just a divisive wedge and you even reject the solutions that would have the greatest impact, such as nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another tidbit for you to ponder, Kaz...(and tell us how many people have died because of wind or solar energy)
> 
> Remember 3 Mile Island? Almost 40 years have passed......and
> 
> _The only independent study, by Dr. Stephen Wing et al., found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the destroyed Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.
> 
> This supports the premise that far more radiation escaped from TMI than has been acknowledged by the authorities. Within hours of the beginning of the nuclear disaster, onsite radiation monitors went off scale and were shut down because radiation levels exceeded their measurement capacity._
Click to expand...

How many people will die long term mining for the makings for the toxic materials that make the battery's for so called "green" energy?? 
So don't get all self righteous with your pseudoscience... Lol


----------



## nat4900

hadit said:


> Would that message be that the two of you (assuming there are actually two of you) are obsessed with male genitalia?




Actually, no...I'm a breast, legs and ass man.....Love women MUCH more than guns....
But you just keep "massaging" your guns fro gratification. LOL


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever* the reason whoever buys *whatever*, I'm sure you have no clue as to their reasons for buying *whatever* and it is neither your or the federal governments business what anyone buys...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, yet another wanna-be right wing Shakespearean prose writer ...
> Such prose, such command of the language...such fucked up-ness.
Click to expand...

Deflection noted


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that message be that the two of you (assuming there are actually two of you) are obsessed with male genitalia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no...I'm a breast, legs and ass man.....Love women MUCH more than guns....
> But you just keep "massaging" your guns fro gratification. LOL
Click to expand...

Shame that you cant get a real woman but probably a Caitlin Jenner type.  Because women like men to protect them, real women that is.  A liberal fag in drag, would like pansy asses like you libs are.  They even made a song about you.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that message be that the two of you (assuming there are actually two of you) are obsessed with male genitalia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no...I'm a breast, legs and ass man.....Love women MUCH more than guns....
> But you just keep "massaging" your guns fro gratification. LOL
Click to expand...

There you go again, your odd obsession with penis... You anti-gun nutters are some odd dudes. Lol


----------



## nat4900

Rustic said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever* the reason whoever buys *whatever*, I'm sure you have no clue as to their reasons for buying *whatever* and it is neither your or the federal governments business what anyone buys...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, yet another wanna-be right wing Shakespearean prose writer ...
> Such prose, such command of the language...such fucked up-ness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection noted
Click to expand...



Go back to posting those cute pictures......The less you write the slightly better off you'll come off. LOL


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> Because women like men to protect them, real women that is




Misogynistic.....one of the many reasons why your backwater ilk will keep losing presidential elections...

BTW, do those "real women" you speak of have all their teeth???? LOL


----------



## Rustic

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when gun manufacturers push a rifle out to the market, which is "intentionally" easily convertible...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot prove this to be the case.
Click to expand...

Extensive machinist work has to be done to convert to fully auto, along with the need of m-4 ramps among other things. Anyone that says it's easily convertible to fully auto - does have their head up their ass 24 seven... 

Progressives don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to firearms, the dumbasses for some reason continue to think a AR15 is A military grade weapon. It's just a sporting rifle.... LOL


----------



## Uncensored2008

alpine said:


> Wrong recipe idiot, do what you said, and watch yourself burning...



Izzatrite sploogy?









> If the bottle manufacturer was specifically designing bottles to allow molotovs to have more cluster impact (which would increase its deadliness) and if the manufacturer use this as a marketing pitch rather than trying to prevent it, to have more profit, then yes of course, they would have responsibility for sure...



More lies from the anti-liberty scumbag.

All glass bottles can be used as molotovs. All will have "cluster impact."

You are simple an agenda driven moron trying lie your way through a debate you long ago lost.




> How hard is it to understand the distinction?
> You gotta be a real bone head for all this not to be able to penetrate into your head...



Killing people is easy, a propane tank, a truck full of fertilizer, a commercial airliner, CS gas like James Holmes made gallons of.

But you don't give a fuck about people dying, you want to end civil rights. You lie through your fucking teeth in your lust to strip others of rights, because lets face it, you lack even a shred of integrity, as is usual for gun grabbers and other leftists.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alpine said:


> Then why they introduced the blocks in those receivers to prevent people from doing that, after they realized how they fucked it all up, faggot.....



So you admit you are a filthy liar and can't show any manufacturer doing what you claimed, then? 

Hey, civil rights aren't going to crush themselves, you HAVE to lie to achieve your goal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Misogynistic.....one of the many reasons why your backwater ilk will keep losing presidential elections...
> 
> BTW, do those "real women" you speak of have all their teeth???? LOL



I realize you're just a troll, but that right there is some fucked up thinking,


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rustic said:


> Extensive machinist work has to be done to convert to fully auto, along with the need of m-4 ramps among other things. Anyone that says it's easily convertible to fully auto - does have their head up their ass 24 seven...
> 
> Progressives don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to firearms, the dumbasses for some reason continue to think a AR15 is A military grade weapon. It's just a sporting rifle.... LOL



The anti-liberty scumbags are just lying, pure and simple. Further, this Apline moron barely speaks English, clearly some Euro-weenie sticking his thug nose into the business of free people.


----------



## ChrisL

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are an extremist nut bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh *I AM? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for freedom.  Freedom for one to decide the path of one's own life, whether other people "agree" with it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good that you're sensible regarding the right to protect oneself.
> 
> Still, what you advocated in confiscating the earnings of others to give to those the state views as more "needy" precludes your claim of being for freedom.
> 
> I can link back to the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes.  Lol.  Once that money leaves your hands, it's not "yours" anymore.  It belongs to US.  Just because you want to whine about poor people while excusing corporate welfare?  Lol.  You are a corporate shill and a peon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.
> financial assistance, as tax breaks or subsidies,given by the government to profit-makingcompanies, especially large corporations.
> 
> Origin of corporate welfare
> 1990-95, Americanism
> 
> the definition of corporate welfare
> 
> Walmart and others have never received subsides like those green companies did.  Walmart and profit producing companies do pay taxes.  When or if they get a tax break, that is also considered corporate welfare even though it's not welfare at all.  Taking less from people (or companies) is not welfare in my opinion.
> 
> According to the definition above, the term was created during the Clinton administration.  Imagine that!  So if we end up with President Trump, and he lowers payroll taxes, will you then be receiving welfare???
Click to expand...


How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#d8c27d37cd84


----------



## ChrisL

WalMart Admits Profits Depend Heavily On Corporate Welfare | Zero Hedge

*Who’s paying for Wal-Mart’s addiction to paying its employees less than a living wage? You are.*


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Wel
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just you 2 use the same wording in every post right down to the penis obsession and the term "darkies"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there may be a message there for you and your ilk, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Funny how I never mention penis size or skin color in any of my posts.

Only people who have no real arguments resort to that childishness


----------



## alpine

Uncensored2008 said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong recipe idiot, do what you said, and watch yourself burning...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Izzatrite sploogy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bottle manufacturer was specifically designing bottles to allow molotovs to have more cluster impact (which would increase its deadliness) and if the manufacturer use this as a marketing pitch rather than trying to prevent it, to have more profit, then yes of course, they would have responsibility for sure...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More lies from the anti-liberty scumbag.
> 
> All glass bottles can be used as molotovs. All will have "cluster impact."
> 
> You are simple an agenda driven moron trying lie your way through a debate you long ago lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How hard is it to understand the distinction?
> You gotta be a real bone head for all this not to be able to penetrate into your head...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing people is easy, a propane tank, a truck full of fertilizer, a commercial airliner, CS gas like James Holmes made gallons of.
> 
> But you don't give a fuck about people dying, you want to end civil rights. You lie through your fucking teeth in your lust to strip others of rights, because lets face it, you lack even a shred of integrity, as is usual for gun grabbers and other leftists.
Click to expand...



You need to close the top part tight to have a cluster impact, you child. Have never seen a molotov in his life and trying to lecture me, idiot.


The reason you see this subject as shallow and simple, is not because this subject is a shallow simple one lacking details, 
it is because your simple shallow mind cant grasp those details on this very subject.

The argument here, which Sandy Hook families are putting in front of a judge (who is apparently not as simple shallow minded as you people here since he agreed to hear it) is the same exact angle I am putting in front of you and you people are unable to understand.

These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to. Just because you are stupid and incapable of doing so dont mean others will not, as an example in Sand Hook massacre.

And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications, on contrary, they enjoyed the popularity of these guns because of this flaw. And they profited some good amounts of money.

The proof is that; now the gun control laws are pressing their way, they see it could end up bad for them, and started to take action and put proper blocks in place so these guns are not that easily modifiable anymore.

This is a case in court, and seems like there are enough evidence/proof that court agreed to hear it.

We all going to see the result.

But we all know something very OBVIOUS: people who think this case is something simple and they have all the answers in simple words, are simply simple minded who are INCAPABLE of thinking and analyzing, BLIND to see any angles, and more than all, STUPID to compare it with cars and knives and bottles (?@!##!@ wtf)

Its that simple, for your simple mind, so you can understand, as a change in your life........


----------



## ChrisL

alpine said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.
> 
> And this is a case especially when that gun manufacturer "intentionally" allows this to happen, as a marketing pitch...
Click to expand...


Wrong.  There was nothing wrong with the weapon and it wasn't illegal to sell it.  The lawsuit is frivolous.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> WalMart Admits Profits Depend Heavily On Corporate Welfare | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Who’s paying for Wal-Mart’s addiction to paying its employees less than a living wage? You are.*



You lying retards are something else..

{
_Wal-Mart’s annual report, issued late last week, puts a different spin on things. _*Buried within the long list of risk factors disclosed to its shareholders–that is, factors “outside our control” that could materially affect financial performance–are these: “changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, (and) changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”*}


So if foodstamps are reduced to people like you, it could affect Walmart sales?

Well damn.

Now this lying scumbag Durden tried to claim this was somehow welfare to Walmart... because the illegal aliens SPEND their Obamabux at Walmart? 

And you wonder why decent people recognize that leftists are utter scum without a hint of integrity..


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WalMart Admits Profits Depend Heavily On Corporate Welfare | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Who’s paying for Wal-Mart’s addiction to paying its employees less than a living wage? You are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lying retards are something else..
> 
> {
> _Wal-Mart’s annual report, issued late last week, puts a different spin on things. _*Buried within the long list of risk factors disclosed to its shareholders–that is, factors “outside our control” that could materially affect financial performance–are these: “changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, (and) changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”*}
> 
> 
> So if foodstamps are reduced to people like you, it could affect Walmart sales?
> 
> Well damn.
> 
> Now this lying scumbag Durden tried to claim this was somehow welfare to Walmart... because the illegal aliens SPEND their Obamabux at Walmart?
> 
> And you wonder why decent people recognize that leftists are utter scum without a hint of integrity..
Click to expand...


Because Walmart gets tax breaks, is a multi-billion dollar company and doesn't pay it's employees a living wage, who do you think picks up the slack?  We do.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WalMart Admits Profits Depend Heavily On Corporate Welfare | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Who’s paying for Wal-Mart’s addiction to paying its employees less than a living wage? You are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lying retards are something else..
> 
> {
> _Wal-Mart’s annual report, issued late last week, puts a different spin on things. _*Buried within the long list of risk factors disclosed to its shareholders–that is, factors “outside our control” that could materially affect financial performance–are these: “changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, (and) changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”*}
> 
> 
> So if foodstamps are reduced to people like you, it could affect Walmart sales?
> 
> Well damn.
> 
> Now this lying scumbag Durden tried to claim this was somehow welfare to Walmart... because the illegal aliens SPEND their Obamabux at Walmart?
> 
> And you wonder why decent people recognize that leftists are utter scum without a hint of integrity..
Click to expand...


What kind of welfare do you get?  You certainly don't work, that much is obvious.  Lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alpine said:


> You need to close the top part tight to have a cluster impact, you child. Have never seen a molotov in his life and trying to lecture me, idiot.



Look, can we at least agree that you're a lying scumbag? A reprehensible bit of refuse in the human condition?

The molotov uses a rag in the as an ignition source AND because it blocks vapor escape. They will explode on impact as long as fuel remains in the bottle.

Trying to lie your way out of this just exposes you as stupidly desperate.



> The reason you see this subject as shallow and simple, is not because this subject is a shallow simple one lacking details,
> it is because your simple shallow mind cant grasp those details on this very subject.
> 
> The argument here, which Sandy Hook families are putting in front of a judge (who is apparently not as simple shallow minded as you people here since he agreed to hear it) is the same exact angle I am putting in front of you and you people are unable to understand.
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to. Just because you are stupid and incapable of doing so dont mean others will not, as an example in Sand Hook massacre.



The judge is violating the law with the hopes that a leftist SCOTUS justice with contempt for the Constitution will uphold the absurd and illegal ruling. 

If your brother who lives in another state robs a liquor store, should you got to prison? Why, or why not?



> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications, on contrary, they enjoyed the popularity of these guns because of this flaw. And they profited some good amounts of money.



A gun manufacturer must produce a product that operates to the specifications advertised. Nothing more. 

I get it, you hate civil rights and want to end them. But this doesn't alter reality. As long as the product did not malfunction, causing injury, there is no standing for a suit. A leftist judge violating the law to promote an anti-liberty agenda notwithstanding.



> The proof is that; now the gun control laws are pressing their way, they see it could end up bad for them, and started to take action and put proper blocks in place so these guns are not that easily modifiable anymore.
> 
> This is a case in court, and seems like there are enough evidence/proof that court agreed to hear it.
> 
> We all going to see the result.
> 
> But we all know something very OBVIOUS: people who think this case is something simple and they have all the answers in simple words, are simply simple minded who are INCAPABLE of thinking and analyzing, BLIND to see any angles, and more than all, STUPID to compare it with cars and knives and bottles (?@!##!@ wtf)
> 
> Its that simple, for your simple mind, so you can understand, as a change in your life........



First off, what country are you from? Clearly not America. You of the left seek to end civil rights, you are waging war on the United States Constitution.  Many here have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You are a foreign enemy, and this judge is a domestic enemy. You both must be stopped through any means. You will not end this nation without a fight that you have never reckoned for.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Because Walmart gets tax breaks,



They do? Not a one of you Bolsheviks has been able to support this lie so far. 



> is a multi-billion dollar company and doesn't pay it's employees a living wage, who do you think picks up the slack?  We do.



So your claim is that if Walmart did NOT employ low skill workers, there would be less welfare?

Are you REALLY this dumb?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> What kind of welfare do you get?  You certainly don't work, that much is obvious.  Lol.



Is that the best your little mind could come up with? 

Pathetic.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of welfare do you get?  You certainly don't work, that much is obvious.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best your little mind could come up with?
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...


So, I'm right then.    Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Walmart gets tax breaks,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do? Not a one of you Bolsheviks has been able to support this lie so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a multi-billion dollar company and doesn't pay it's employees a living wage, who do you think picks up the slack?  We do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your claim is that if Walmart did NOT employ low skill workers, there would be less welfare?
> 
> Are you REALLY this dumb?
Click to expand...


Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> 
> So, I'm right then.    Lol.



The next time you are right about something, will be the first time, Catz.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First



So the greedy SEUI union thugs can't even show a dime of FEDERAL money going to Walmart?

Every city offers tax advantages to business to entice them to build. See if your pea brain can come up with why they do this....


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> So, I'm right then.    Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next time you are right about something, will be the first time, Catz.
Click to expand...


Who's catz?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the greedy SEUI union thugs can't even show a dime of FEDERAL money going to Walmart?
> 
> Every city offers tax advantages to business to entice them to build. See if your pea brain can come up with why they do this....
Click to expand...


It's all in the link, and we pay for it.  We also support their employees' social services that they receive.


----------



## ChrisL

Attention, Walmart shoppers, you are getting screwed.


----------



## alpine

Uncensored2008 said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to close the top part tight to have a cluster impact, you child. Have never seen a molotov in his life and trying to lecture me, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, can we at least agree that you're a lying scumbag? A reprehensible bit of refuse in the human condition?
> 
> The molotov uses a rag in the as an ignition source AND because it blocks vapor escape. They will explode on impact as long as fuel remains in the bottle.
> 
> Trying to lie your way out of this just exposes you as stupidly desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you see this subject as shallow and simple, is not because this subject is a shallow simple one lacking details,
> it is because your simple shallow mind cant grasp those details on this very subject.
> 
> The argument here, which Sandy Hook families are putting in front of a judge (who is apparently not as simple shallow minded as you people here since he agreed to hear it) is the same exact angle I am putting in front of you and you people are unable to understand.
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to. Just because you are stupid and incapable of doing so dont mean others will not, as an example in Sand Hook massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judge is violating the law with the hopes that a leftist SCOTUS justice with contempt for the Constitution will uphold the absurd and illegal ruling.
> 
> If your brother who lives in another state robs a liquor store, should you got to prison? Why, or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications, on contrary, they enjoyed the popularity of these guns because of this flaw. And they profited some good amounts of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun manufacturer must produce a product that operates to the specifications advertised. Nothing more.
> 
> I get it, you hate civil rights and want to end them. But this doesn't alter reality. As long as the product did not malfunction, causing injury, there is no standing for a suit. A leftist judge violating the law to promote an anti-liberty agenda notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is that; now the gun control laws are pressing their way, they see it could end up bad for them, and started to take action and put proper blocks in place so these guns are not that easily modifiable anymore.
> 
> This is a case in court, and seems like there are enough evidence/proof that court agreed to hear it.
> 
> We all going to see the result.
> 
> But we all know something very OBVIOUS: people who think this case is something simple and they have all the answers in simple words, are simply simple minded who are INCAPABLE of thinking and analyzing, BLIND to see any angles, and more than all, STUPID to compare it with cars and knives and bottles (?@!##!@ wtf)
> 
> Its that simple, for your simple mind, so you can understand, as a change in your life........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, what country are you from? Clearly not America. You of the left seek to end civil rights, you are waging war on the United States Constitution.  Many here have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You are a foreign enemy, and this judge is a domestic enemy. You both must be stopped through any means. You will not end this nation without a fight that you have never reckoned for.
Click to expand...




My suggestion to you, dont bother with subjects your brain cant get a hold of. 
These are complicated issues that are way above your head. You are just a simpleton trying to survive day to day. 

With this brain capacity, your civil rights are limited to what you are offered... You dont have the imagination for anything beyond.

You put marbles in the molotov for it to have any particle effect idiot. You have to block the tight end as good as you can with tight material, so it explodes to have the marbles spread around like bullets.

DO it the way you described in your first post, you wont only burn yourself alive, also will make a good youtube idiot video for us to laugh at....


----------



## Uncensored2008

alpine said:


> My suggestion to you, dont bother with subjects your brain cant get a hold of.
> These are complicated issues that are way above your head. You are just a simpleton trying to survive day to day.



What country are you in? Sweden? Denmark? Germany?

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

Complicated? Well, no. There are those who seek to infringe civil rights - you for instance - who imagine that spurious arguments founded on logical fallacy will allow you to crush the rights of others.

But let me clue you in sparky, that you "see" the Emperors new clothes is not the evidence that you are wise that you think it is. 



> With this brain capacity, your civil rights are limited to what you are offered... You dont have the imagination for anything beyond.



In America, our founding fathers had the wisdom to enumerate certain rights that thugs and villains are expressly forbidden to infringe. The right to keep and bear arms are only second to the right of speech and religion, which you thugs are fighting equally to crush.



> You put marbles in the molotov for it to have any particle effect idiot. You have to block the tight end as good as you can with tight material, so it explodes to have the marbles spread around like bullets.



That would be shrapnel, retard. Partials can be the glass and the gas. Seriously, you are so desperate to make your lie true that you are making a complete fool of yourself, Fritz.



> DO it the way you described in your first post, you wont only burn yourself alive, also will make a good youtube idiot video for us to laugh at....



Yawn.

The point your clearly lack the wits to grasp is that weapons to kill large numbers are common and outlawing the one weapon with clear defensive properties will do nothing to stop those who want to slaughter others. *NOR* is saving lives the intent of you thugs and villains, quite the opposite. You seek disarmed victims.


----------



## alpine

Uncensored2008 said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion to you, dont bother with subjects your brain cant get a hold of.
> These are complicated issues that are way above your head. You are just a simpleton trying to survive day to day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country are you in? Sweden? Denmark? Germany?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Complicated? Well, no. There are those who seek to infringe civil rights - you for instance - who imagine that spurious arguments founded on logical fallacy will allow you to crush the rights of others.
> 
> But let me clue you in sparky, that you "see" the Emperors new clothes is not the evidence that you are wise that you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this brain capacity, your civil rights are limited to what you are offered... You dont have the imagination for anything beyond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In America, our founding fathers had the wisdom to enumerate certain rights that thugs and villains are expressly forbidden to infringe. The right to keep and bear arms are only second to the right of speech and religion, which you thugs are fighting equally to crush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You put marbles in the molotov for it to have any particle effect idiot. You have to block the tight end as good as you can with tight material, so it explodes to have the marbles spread around like bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be shrapnel, retard. Partials can be the glass and the gas. Seriously, you are so desperate to make your lie true that you are making a complete fool of yourself, Fritz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO it the way you described in your first post, you wont only burn yourself alive, also will make a good youtube idiot video for us to laugh at....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> The point your clearly lack the wits to grasp is that weapons to kill large numbers are common and outlawing the one weapon with clear defensive properties will do nothing to stop those who want to slaughter others. *NOR* is saving lives the intent of you thugs and villains, quite the opposite. You seek disarmed victims.
Click to expand...



Shrapnel are not particles ha...

Thats how smart you are...


----------



## eagle1462010

Appears the No's still have it.  Thanks for voting to all who voted......................Didn't expect this long of a battle......

LOL


----------



## ChrisL

eagle1462010 said:


> Appears the No's still have it.  Thanks for voting to all who voted......................Didn't expect this long of a battle......
> 
> LOL



Yeaaaahhh!  We are the champions!


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and there isn't one to own guns, either.  In fact, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the constitution.
Click to expand...

But the word "arms" does.

Arms are guns.

That including weapons, armaments, ordnance, munitions and wouldn't you know. The big scary thing that makes your penis shrink... ARTILLERY!


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children? That's your argument? Seriously? Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb? On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb? Did you actually care for it once it was born? What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types? Why do you hate humanity so much? Did your mother beat you as a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reported for attacking families.
> 
> My mom had several miscarriages.  She didn't consider that the same as a baby she actualy had and raised.  We don't hold funerals over tampons, we put them in the medical waste bin.
> 
> Next lame argument?
Click to expand...

Tissue?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a constitutional right to smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and there isn't one to own guns, either.  In fact, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says "arms"
> 
> it is an accepted definition that arms means weapons including firearms.  Firearm is a synonym for gun
> 
> Get it?
Click to expand...

No! He doesn't.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

andaronjim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you forgot what happened in the industrialized country of Norway where a* liberal left wing nut job* went out to a children's retreat and executed kids just having fun(why do liberals have to ruin the fun of others?) Mass Murderer Smirks at Sentence  Oops,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read your own links, Stupid?
> 
> _Anders Breivik, a *rightwing extremist *who admitted to carrying out the massacre in an effort to battle *"multiculturalism"* in Europe, had previously said that being declared insane -- as prosecutors requested -- would have been the "ultimate humiliation." The 21-year sentence is the maximum under Norwegian law but can be extended later if Breivik is still deemed to be a threat to society._
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you do realize that "liberal" is an actual set of beliefs, and "not just something I can throw at anyone I don't like".
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, we weren't supposed to remember this right Joe? Instead of going after the inanimate object that does no harm, go after the EVIL liberals, execute them, and guess what? No repeat offenders. I say hang the murderers on national TV showing how they piss and shit their pants while they wiggle and squirm as their life breath slowly escapes their lips. Watch how their eyes bug out because there is no oxygen going to them or the brain. In todays technological world, there cant be a mix up where the courts could send an innocent man to the gallows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, dude, do you like watch snuff films when you aren't here?
> 
> The problem with your approach is that it only takes effect AFTER the nutjob has killed a pre-school full of children.  That really doesn't help the parents of the kids who are still dead.
> 
> Banning guns, or at least limiting their sale to RESPONSIBLE people, would keep that from happening altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think that guns are just going to disappear.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all, with my 2nd amendment right, the liberals CANT take my guns away.  If they try, they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.  It wont be easy either.
Click to expand...

BAM!


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, with my 2nd amendment right, the liberals CANT take my guns away. If they try, they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers. It wont be easy either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day private gun ownership is outlawed, you will meekly turn in your gun.
Click to expand...

Come get 'em.

Meekly.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, an ar15 is not military grade... It's just a sporting rifle.\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it look JUST LIKE the M16 I used to carry in the Army?
Click to expand...

Because it "looks" like it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ChrisL said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WalMart Admits Profits Depend Heavily On Corporate Welfare | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Who’s paying for Wal-Mart’s addiction to paying its employees less than a living wage? You are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lying retards are something else..
> 
> {
> _Wal-Mart’s annual report, issued late last week, puts a different spin on things. _*Buried within the long list of risk factors disclosed to its shareholders–that is, factors “outside our control” that could materially affect financial performance–are these: “changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, (and) changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”*}
> 
> 
> So if foodstamps are reduced to people like you, it could affect Walmart sales?
> 
> Well damn.
> 
> Now this lying scumbag Durden tried to claim this was somehow welfare to Walmart... because the illegal aliens SPEND their Obamabux at Walmart?
> 
> And you wonder why decent people recognize that leftists are utter scum without a hint of integrity..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Walmart gets tax breaks, is a multi-billion dollar company and doesn't pay it's employees a living wage, who do you think picks up the slack?  We do.
Click to expand...


Correct, we do, but that's because of the lax regulations on collecting welfare in our country--not because of Walmart.  

People who work 20 to 25 hours at Walmart and have their food stamps, Obama phone, free Obama Care are not going to work 40 hours to give that all up.  They are not going to take a second job besides to get ahead.  

Our taxpayer give-aways discourage people from working hard and making the best of the situation they have.  Based on all the help wanted signs I see everywhere, I'm sure many industries would love to see our politicians clamp down on all these Christmas presents so they can get enough help for their company.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

nat4900 said:


> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.


Oh please.

I'm not a right winger.

I'm a Democrat.


----------



## gtopa1

Yousaidwhat said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I'm not a right winger.
> 
> I'm a Democrat.
Click to expand...


Then how come you're a sensible sorta person???

Greg


----------



## Yousaidwhat

gtopa1 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I'm not a right winger.
> 
> I'm a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how come you're a sensible sorta person???
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Because I served my Country.

I don't think with emotion and fear.

I see a world that will not be so kind to those who disarm themselves and line up like sheep who trade their freedom for a false sense of security.


----------



## gtopa1

Yousaidwhat said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has gone on for way too long.......But a couple of observations.....
> 
> 1. I had no idea of just how full of FEAR right wingers' lives must be....clutching their guns and constantly looking up to  the sky for government helicopters.
> 
> 2. Some folks will remember that machine guns were once outlawed with little opposition from conservatives (2nd amendment be damned), fearing that those pesky "Negroes" would get a hold of them and give racists something to really be concerned about.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I'm not a right winger.
> 
> I'm a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how come you're a sensible sorta person???
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I served my Country.
> 
> I don't think with emotion and fear.
> 
> I see a world that will not be so kind to those who disarm themselves and line up like sheep who trade their freedom for a false sense of security.
Click to expand...


Very true indeed. Well on this we agree though I never served as you did. I thank you for that service. We had "gun laws" imposed by conservatives here (Oz) and frankly they were wrong, but then again we have no Constitutional Protection as you mob do. I find the perspective of a few Dems refreshing; unfortunately there is that pesky left wing bunch...

Greg


----------



## SmokeALib

Just in: Fat people can sue Lays potato chip manufacturers.


----------



## gtopa1

SmokeALib said:


> Just in: Fat people can sue Lays potato chip manufacturers.



Who do we sue for the AK47s??? 

Greg


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Skull Pilot said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't children? That's your argument? Seriously? Did your mother consider you her child when you were in the womb? On the off chance that you found a willing mate and procreated, were you indifferent to the life growing in your wife's womb? Did you actually care for it once it was born? What is it with you culture of death, pro-abortion types? Why do you hate humanity so much? Did your mother beat you as a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reported for attacking families.
> 
> My mom had several miscarriages.  She didn't consider that the same as a baby she actualy had and raised.  We don't hold funerals over tampons, we put them in the medical waste bin.
> 
> Next lame argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe, shame that your mother didn't have one extra miscarriage........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best part of him ran down her leg and got lapped up by the dog
Click to expand...

I hope the dog is OK.


----------



## SmokeALib

gtopa1 said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in: Fat people can sue Lays potato chip manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do we sue for the AK47s???
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

The Russians? See how that works forya.


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> But the word "arms" does.
> 
> Arms are guns.
> 
> That including weapons, armaments, ordnance, munitions and wouldn't you know. The big scary thing that makes your penis shrink... ARTILLERY!



But the point is, we don't let average citizens have artillery. Or nukes, or anthrax or any other "arms" they could use that could cause mass destruction.  

So we've already established that the government can "Well regulated" what weapons "the people" can have.  

AR-15's fall into that category.  Whoops.  There it is.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

hadit said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for one crucial difference. Manufacturing weapons is not illegal and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there must be a grown up around your basement to explain my post to you......The Constitutional right to own a weapon was written when we had muskets........Any moron could then interpret the 2nd Amendment to also include the "right" to secure and own a nuclear devise, a bazooka, a tank , etc.
> 
> This thread (for those slow-witted, right wingers) is NOT about stopping  the sale of any guns....BUT the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest of time......(and, of course, for macho men to provide an extension to their small penises.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are gun controllers obsessed with male genitalia?
Click to expand...

Because they don't have any. Why do you think they want to be allowed access to women's restrooms.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Correct, we do, but that's because of the lax regulations on collecting welfare in our country--not because of Walmart.
> 
> People who work 20 to 25 hours at Walmart and have their food stamps, Obama phone, free Obama Care are not going to work 40 hours to give that all up. They are not going to take a second job besides to get ahead.



It's more like, that extra 15 hours at minimum wage isn't going get them that much.   So fifteen extra hours at 7.75/Hr.  That's an extra $116 a week.  Can they buy insurance at $116 a week?


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> Because I served my Country.
> 
> I don't think with emotion and fear.
> 
> I see a world that will not be so kind to those who disarm themselves and line up like sheep who trade their freedom for a false sense of security.



I served, too.  

And I don't see my cowering in my home clinging to my gun and my bible as being "Free".  I don't see sending my kids to school or the park or the movies and having to worry some asshole who didn't take his meds MIGHT show up with an AR-15 as being "free".


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the word "arms" does.
> 
> Arms are guns.
> 
> That including weapons, armaments, ordnance, munitions and wouldn't you know. The big scary thing that makes your penis shrink... ARTILLERY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is, we don't let average citizens have artillery. Or nukes, or anthrax or any other "arms" they could use that could cause mass destruction.
> 
> So we've already established that the government can "Well regulated" what weapons "the people" can have.
> 
> AR-15's fall into that category.  Whoops.  There it is.
Click to expand...

No shit , Sherlock!

Where did I say I wanted idiots to have Artillery. I responded to your post about what arms are.

Militia. Again for the challenged individuals who spent their time hating school that they didn't learn 'nuffin'

Militia. An army comprised of ordinary citizens to supplement the regular Army.

Since there are millions of veterans in this country, I would assume that these millions are considered the "Militia" and that of the millions of "Arms" are more than likely owned by this Militia.

Class dismissed.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I served my Country.
> 
> I don't think with emotion and fear.
> 
> I see a world that will not be so kind to those who disarm themselves and line up like sheep who trade their freedom for a false sense of security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I served, too.
> 
> And I don't see my cowering in my home clinging to my gun and my bible as being "Free".  I don't see sending my kids to school or the park or the movies and having to worry some asshole who didn't take his meds MIGHT show up with an AR-15 as being "free".
Click to expand...

Sir, I don't cower in my house clinging to my gun nor do I cling to a Bible.

I am an agnostic.

I don't know about you but I am free.

Your fear is YOU!


----------



## Yousaidwhat

nat4900 said:


> Obviously there is an inordinate amount of fear among right wingers; terrible way to live, clutching their guns, thumping their bibles and scared shit-less of "darkies".......Whenever there's a mass shooting by some deranged bastard, they flood the gun stores to get MORE guns and ammunition.
> 
> How many of these gun-loving right wingers on here alone are just one step away from a pissed off moment to become yet another Lanza?


Whaaaaaaaa! 
I make my own ammunition.

Scary, ain't it!


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> No shit , Sherlock!
> 
> Where did I say I wanted idiots to have Artillery. I responded to your post about what arms are.
> 
> Militia. Again for the challenged individuals who spent their time hating school that they didn't learn 'nuffin'
> 
> Militia. An army comprised of ordinary citizens to supplement the regular Army.



But the thing is, we don't need that. We have a "well-regulated" supplement to the armed forces, they are called "The National Guard".  Where they keep all the "arms" in an "Arms vault". 

Now, this might have made sense back in 1787, when we didn't have a regular army. Or Police Departments, and white people needed to have their guns on hand in case they needed to genocide some native Americans or put a slave revolt down. (Please note, they didn't let Native Americans or Slaves to have guns.) 

Today, not so much.


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> Sir, I don't cower in my house clinging to my gun nor do I cling to a Bible.
> 
> I am an agnostic.
> 
> I don't know about you but I am free.
> 
> Your fear is YOU!



No, my fear is picking up a newspaper on any given day and reading so many people were shot and so many people were killed and we are to accept this as normal. And don't ever try to change it because 200 year ago, some slave-raping asshole couldn't probably word a militia amendment.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to close the top part tight to have a cluster impact, you child. Have never seen a molotov in his life and trying to lecture me, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, can we at least agree that you're a lying scumbag? A reprehensible bit of refuse in the human condition?
> 
> The molotov uses a rag in the as an ignition source AND because it blocks vapor escape. They will explode on impact as long as fuel remains in the bottle.
> 
> Trying to lie your way out of this just exposes you as stupidly desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you see this subject as shallow and simple, is not because this subject is a shallow simple one lacking details,
> it is because your simple shallow mind cant grasp those details on this very subject.
> 
> The argument here, which Sandy Hook families are putting in front of a judge (who is apparently not as simple shallow minded as you people here since he agreed to hear it) is the same exact angle I am putting in front of you and you people are unable to understand.
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to. Just because you are stupid and incapable of doing so dont mean others will not, as an example in Sand Hook massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judge is violating the law with the hopes that a leftist SCOTUS justice with contempt for the Constitution will uphold the absurd and illegal ruling.
> 
> If your brother who lives in another state robs a liquor store, should you got to prison? Why, or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications, on contrary, they enjoyed the popularity of these guns because of this flaw. And they profited some good amounts of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun manufacturer must produce a product that operates to the specifications advertised. Nothing more.
> 
> I get it, you hate civil rights and want to end them. But this doesn't alter reality. As long as the product did not malfunction, causing injury, there is no standing for a suit. A leftist judge violating the law to promote an anti-liberty agenda notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is that; now the gun control laws are pressing their way, they see it could end up bad for them, and started to take action and put proper blocks in place so these guns are not that easily modifiable anymore.
> 
> This is a case in court, and seems like there are enough evidence/proof that court agreed to hear it.
> 
> We all going to see the result.
> 
> But we all know something very OBVIOUS: people who think this case is something simple and they have all the answers in simple words, are simply simple minded who are INCAPABLE of thinking and analyzing, BLIND to see any angles, and more than all, STUPID to compare it with cars and knives and bottles (?@!##!@ wtf)
> 
> Its that simple, for your simple mind, so you can understand, as a change in your life........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, what country are you from? Clearly not America. You of the left seek to end civil rights, you are waging war on the United States Constitution.  Many here have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You are a foreign enemy, and this judge is a domestic enemy. You both must be stopped through any means. You will not end this nation without a fight that you have never reckoned for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion to you, dont bother with subjects your brain cant get a hold of.
> These are complicated issues that are way above your head. You are just a simpleton trying to survive day to day.
> 
> With this brain capacity, your civil rights are limited to what you are offered... You dont have the imagination for anything beyond.
> 
> You put marbles in the molotov for it to have any particle effect idiot. You have to block the tight end as good as you can with tight material, so it explodes to have the marbles spread around like bullets.
> 
> DO it the way you described in your first post, you wont only burn yourself alive, also will make a good youtube idiot video for us to laugh at....
Click to expand...

Terrorist much!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the word "arms" does.
> 
> Arms are guns.
> 
> That including weapons, armaments, ordnance, munitions and wouldn't you know. The big scary thing that makes your penis shrink... ARTILLERY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is, we don't let average citizens have artillery. Or nukes, or anthrax or any other "arms" they could use that could cause mass destruction.
> 
> So we've already established that the government can "Well regulated" what weapons "the people" can have.
> 
> AR-15's fall into that category.  Whoops.  There it is.
Click to expand...

No Joe they don't fall into the artillery category.  You just cant let it go.   How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job


> *#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs.* They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.


  The liberal talking points say "AR-15s are assault rifles" and even when we prove you wrong, you just cant piss out that liberal Kool-aid.  I guess when your penis is the size of a toothpick, peeing out the colored water is just too difficult.  The liberals want our guns taken away, so they can take over the country and really turn it into a Socialist Utopia just like Venezuela and the old USSR.  Problem with the liberals, is that as long as the 2nd amendment allows "*LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"* to protect themselves for governments foreign and domestic, the liberals will continue to rant and rave.  Instead of the liberals punishing criminals with the full extent of the law(illegal guns) by the death penalty, then there will continue to have illegal gun deaths by criminals(who are liberal leftwing nutjobs).  When America starts to turn out the lights like Socialist Venezuela, think illegal gun crimes will go down? 
Venezuela’s woes are mounting as it turns the lights off


> Venezuela's economic problems hit a new peak this week as rolling blackouts and a two-day working week were introduced to alleviate an energy crisis.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> liberals want our guns taken away, so they can take over the country and really turn it into a Socialist Utopia just like Venezuela and the old USSR. Problem with the liberals, is that as long as the 2nd amendment allows "*LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"* to protect themselves for governments foreign and domestic, the liberals will continue to rant and rave. I



But you aren't shooting "criminals", guy.   We have 33,000 gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminals.  The ones who were weren't doing things that merited killing them. 

Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, I don't cower in my house clinging to my gun nor do I cling to a Bible.
> 
> I am an agnostic.
> 
> I don't know about you but I am free.
> 
> Your fear is YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my fear is picking up a newspaper on any given day and reading so many people were shot and so many people were killed and we are to accept this as normal. And don't ever try to change it because 200 year ago, some slave-raping asshole couldn't probably word a militia amendment.
Click to expand...

Did you know that the DHS had known the terrorists of San Bernardino were on the no fly list, yet they allowed them to get guns?  Shall we sue Obama and his justice department for failing to protect innocent people just celebrating a Christmas Party?  Funny how liberals go after manufacturers while the government allows criminals to murder.  Joe, if one of your family members get murdered by an illegal alien that was detained by ICE but had to be let go, on Obama's orders, would you blame the gun manufacturer or Obama?   Dumbass....

ICE under fire for releasing thousands of illegal immigrants with rap sheets | Fox News


> The Obama administration took fire at a House hearing Thursday for releasing back into society thousands of illegal immigrants who had committed crimes on U.S. soil – including those behind more than 200 murders.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> liberals want our guns taken away, so they can take over the country and really turn it into a Socialist Utopia just like Venezuela and the old USSR. Problem with the liberals, is that as long as the 2nd amendment allows "*LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"* to protect themselves for governments foreign and domestic, the liberals will continue to rant and rave. I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you aren't shooting "criminals", guy.   We have 33,000 gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminals.  The ones who were weren't doing things that merited killing them.
> 
> Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.
Click to expand...

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015


> While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.


 Okay Joe, first question.
1. Who has been the president for the past 7 /1 years of Hope and Change, and done nothing to make living conditions in the inner city better, but has been stirring up racial division, but black on black murders aren't part of the black lives matter?
2.  Why is it every time a liberal opens their mouth about limiting US Citizens from owning "Legal Weapons and Ammo", but does nothing to keep criminals from getting illegal guns?  Which most are not Assault style weapons but pistols?
Because Joe you are too stupid to know better.    Now go rant and rave more and goosestep and salute Der Fuhrer.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Did you know that the DHS had known the terrorists of San Bernardino were on the no fly list, yet they allowed them to get guns?



Well, it's funny you mention that.  Besides the fact the SB Shooters got their guns through a third party, the fact is, REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS specifically created a carve out that being on the "no fly list" should not be an impediment to your God Given Right to own enough firepower to fight off the Zombie Apocalypse. 

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-and-no-fly-list-all-you-need-know-403821

_In addition, opponents of using the no-fly list as a tool for gun control note that the two San Bernardino shooters, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, were not on the list._

So in short. 

Republicans banned the NFL from being used to prevent bad guys from getting guns. 

But the San Bernadino Terrorists didn't buy their guns directly, and they weren't on the list.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Okay Joe, first question.
> 1. Who has been the president for the past 7 /1 years of Hope and Change, and done nothing to make living conditions in the inner city better, but has been stirring up racial division, but black on black murders aren't part of the black lives matter?



Are you asking a question, or just repeating a list of talking points you've heard on Hate Radio yesterday? 

Hey, guy, Obama isn't the guy stirring up racial divisions.  That would be thug cops shooting unarmed children and then lying about it. 



andaronjim said:


> 2. Why is it every time a liberal opens their mouth about limiting US Citizens from owning "Legal Weapons and Ammo", but does nothing to keep criminals from getting illegal guns? Which most are not Assault style weapons but pistols?



Where do you think the criminals are getting their "illegal" guns.  They are usually buying them from "legal" straw buyers or they are stealing them from legal buyers when the legal buyer isn't home.  So, uh, yeah, you dry up the "legal" supply, and the illegal supply will vanish.  I'm sorry this very simple concept is beyond your grasp. 

this isn't the goal of your beloved gun industry, though.  Their goal is to sell guns to the crooks so people like you and Dick Tiny and Ray-Cist from Cleveland will all be really scared and want guns, too.  And then when our inner cities become free fire zones, the police will need to arm themselves like soliders to break up simple domestic violence issues.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

The "no fly list?"

When these individuals are found guilty by a court of law then and only then should they lose their rights.

If they are on a list and they are not citizens, then they have NO business in this country.

You want to start putting people on a list to deny their rights?

Let's put you on a list!

You'd be all ( pun intended) up in arms!

Speaking of this list. Who decided to compile this list?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Almost 1800 posts it.

You win Joe.

You can come and get my gu...arms.


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.




It's this little tidbit (above) that simply escapes right wing, gun "lovers".....which makes them either stupid or intentionally delusional.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that the DHS had known the terrorists of San Bernardino were on the no fly list, yet they allowed them to get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's funny you mention that.  Besides the fact the SB Shooters got their guns through a third party, the fact is, REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS specifically created a carve out that being on the "no fly list" should not be an impediment to your God Given Right to own enough firepower to fight off the Zombie Apocalypse.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-and-no-fly-list-all-you-need-know-403821
> 
> _In addition, opponents of using the no-fly list as a tool for gun control note that the two San Bernardino shooters, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, were not on the list._
> 
> So in short.
> 
> Republicans banned the NFL from being used to prevent bad guys from getting guns.
> 
> But the San Bernadino Terrorists didn't buy their guns directly, and they weren't on the list.
Click to expand...

I am done with you Joe, you cant change stupid, democrats want legal guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so then terrorists and criminals can walk into that gun free zone and start killing everyone.  It happened in a Colorado Theater, Sandy Hook school, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and monthly in Chicago, NYC and other inner cities.  Gun Free Zone means killing zone.  You are just stupid.....


----------



## Yousaidwhat

nat4900 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's this little tidbit (above) that simply escapes right wing, gun "lovers".....which makes them either stupid or intentionally delusional.
Click to expand...

Most western democracy's don't have a Constitution that says that is a no no!

Last time I checked this was a Republic.


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> The "no fly list?"
> 
> When these individuals are found guilty by a court of law then and only then should they lose their rights.
> 
> If they are on a list and they are not citizens, then they have NO business in this country.
> 
> You want to start putting people on a list to deny their rights?
> 
> Let's put you on a list!
> 
> You'd be all ( pun intended) up in arms!
> 
> Speaking of this list. Who decided to compile this list?



Your boy Bush did.  

here's the thing. We compiled this list after 9/11.  We also put in better metal detectors, replaced the minimum wage security guys with a professional TSA, put steel doors on the cockpits of airliners, deployed hundreds of Air Marshals.   

In short, there was a tragedy, and we took appropriate action.   

33,000 people die from guns every year, and every year the National Rampage Association fights tooth and nail against even the most reasonable precautions, like closing the gun show loophole or preventing people on the No fly List from buying guns.  

None of these things would prevent a supposedly "law-abiding" gun owner like yourself from compensating for your tiny pecker.  

They are just common sense.  

But common sense doesn't sell guns.  FEAR sells guns.


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> Most western democracy's don't have a Constitution that says that is a no no!
> 
> Last time I checked this was a Republic.



We don't either.  We have a Militia amendment.  Not sure why we still need a militia amendment, any more than why we still need a "Army can't quarter troops in your house" amendment in 2015, these seem to be "concerns people don't have anymore in the modern age".


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "no fly list?"
> 
> When these individuals are found guilty by a court of law then and only then should they lose their rights.
> 
> If they are on a list and they are not citizens, then they have NO business in this country.
> 
> You want to start putting people on a list to deny their rights?
> 
> Let's put you on a list!
> 
> You'd be all ( pun intended) up in arms!
> 
> Speaking of this list. Who decided to compile this list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your boy Bush did.
> 
> here's the thing. We compiled this list after 9/11.  We also put in better metal detectors, replaced the minimum wage security guys with a professional TSA, put steel doors on the cockpits of airliners, deployed hundreds of Air Marshals.
> 
> In short, there was a tragedy, and we took appropriate action.
> 
> 33,000 people die from guns every year, and every year the National Rampage Association fights tooth and nail against even the most reasonable precautions, like closing the gun show loophole or preventing people on the No fly List from buying guns.
> 
> None of these things would prevent a supposedly "law-abiding" gun owner like yourself from compensating for your tiny pecker.
> 
> They are just common sense.
> 
> But common sense doesn't sell guns.  FEAR sells guns.
Click to expand...

My boy Bush?

In case you missed the post.

I'm a Democrat.


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> I am done with you Joe, you cant change stupid, democrats want legal guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so then terrorists and criminals can walk into that gun free zone and start killing everyone. It happened in a Colorado Theater, Sandy Hook school, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and monthly in Chicago, NYC and other inner cities. Gun Free Zone means killing zone. You are just stupid..



Guy, man up and admit you didn't do your research when you made a stupid statement. 

The thing is, Holmes, Lanza, Cho, Mercer, Loughner were not "Criminals" or "Terrorists".  They were regular citizens who were able to get guns they had no business having, and killed dozens of people in the process.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> liberals want our guns taken away, so they can take over the country and really turn it into a Socialist Utopia just like Venezuela and the old USSR. Problem with the liberals, is that as long as the 2nd amendment allows "*LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"* to protect themselves for governments foreign and domestic, the liberals will continue to rant and rave. I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you aren't shooting "criminals", guy.   We have 33,000 gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminals.  The ones who were weren't doing things that merited killing them.
> 
> Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.
Click to expand...


Suicides don't count.  People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.

And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> My boy Bush?
> 
> In case you missed the post.
> 
> I'm a Democrat.



Sure you are.  you are also a princess and a naughty nurse.


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's this little tidbit (above) that simply escapes right wing, gun "lovers".....which makes them either stupid or intentionally delusional.
Click to expand...


If you want to to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> Suicides don't count. People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out



what fun would that be.  

I want to live in the country that bans guns, and then all you pathetic, malignant narcissists will be standing on the sidewalk crying when the ATF comes by to take your guns to the smelting plant.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most western democracy's don't have a Constitution that says that is a no no!
> 
> Last time I checked this was a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't either.  We have a Militia amendment.  Not sure why we still need a militia amendment, any more than why we still need a "Army can't quarter troops in your house" amendment in 2015, these seem to be "concerns people don't have anymore in the modern age".
Click to expand...

Come on Joe.

How many times do we have to say that we don't want certain people to have firearms.

I'm in Maryland. Do you think it was easy to transfer firearms from California to Maryland?

Disarming me is not going to stop these mentally challenged assholes from shooting each other.

I'm just making sure they can't shoot me.

I don't go out armed and everything is locked and nobody but me knows where the key is.

You're chasing your tail.

We won't be giving them up.

Even if you BAN them.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suicides don't count. People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what fun would that be.
> 
> I want to live in the country that bans guns, and then all you pathetic, malignant narcissists will be standing on the sidewalk crying when the ATF comes by to take your guns to the smelting plant.
Click to expand...


It'll never happen but i highly suggest you hold your breath until it does


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> My boy Bush?
> 
> In case you missed the post.
> 
> I'm a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are.  you are also a princess and a naughty nurse.
Click to expand...

OK Joe. Whatever you say.

I'm not going to be in your fantasy.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am done with you Joe, you cant change stupid, democrats want legal guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so then terrorists and criminals can walk into that gun free zone and start killing everyone. It happened in a Colorado Theater, Sandy Hook school, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and monthly in Chicago, NYC and other inner cities. Gun Free Zone means killing zone. You are just stupid..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, man up and admit you didn't do your research when you made a stupid statement.
> 
> The thing is, Holmes, Lanza, Cho, Mercer, Loughner were not "Criminals" or "Terrorists".  They were regular citizens who were able to get guns they had no business having, and killed dozens of people in the process.
Click to expand...

Regular citizens like you Joe?  Have you spilled the beans about liberals?  That liberals and criminals mean the same thing?  I am going to put a thank you on your last remark.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit , Sherlock!
> 
> Where did I say I wanted idiots to have Artillery. I responded to your post about what arms are.
> 
> Militia. Again for the challenged individuals who spent their time hating school that they didn't learn 'nuffin'
> 
> Militia. An army comprised of ordinary citizens to supplement the regular Army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the thing is, we don't need that. We have a "well-regulated" supplement to the armed forces, they are called "The National Guard".  Where they keep all the "arms" in an "Arms vault".
> 
> Now, this might have made sense back in 1787, when we didn't have a regular army. Or Police Departments, and white people needed to have their guns on hand in case they needed to genocide some native Americans or put a slave revolt down. (Please note, they didn't let Native Americans or Slaves to have guns.)
> 
> Today, not so much.
Click to expand...

Where does this " We don't need that" come from?

We don't care what you don't need.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "no fly list?"
> 
> When these individuals are found guilty by a court of law then and only then should they lose their rights.
> 
> If they are on a list and they are not citizens, then they have NO business in this country.
> 
> You want to start putting people on a list to deny their rights?
> 
> Let's put you on a list!
> 
> You'd be all ( pun intended) up in arms!
> 
> Speaking of this list. Who decided to compile this list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your boy Bush did.
> 
> here's the thing. We compiled this list after 9/11.  We also put in better metal detectors, replaced the minimum wage security guys with a professional TSA, put steel doors on the cockpits of airliners, deployed hundreds of Air Marshals.
> 
> In short, there was a tragedy, and we took appropriate action.
> 
> 33,000 people die from guns every year, and every year the National Rampage Association fights tooth and nail against even the most reasonable precautions, like closing the gun show loophole or preventing people on the No fly List from buying guns.
> 
> None of these things would prevent a supposedly "law-abiding" gun owner like yourself from compensating for your tiny pecker.
> 
> They are just common sense.
> 
> But common sense doesn't sell guns.  FEAR sells guns.
Click to expand...

There you go again.

No wonder no one here takes you seriously.

Insults and tiny penis posts.

Peeking through people's Windows again?

Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.

You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.

You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.

Good day.


----------



## Iceweasel

Why are you guys talking to that retard?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suicides don't count. People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what fun would that be.
> 
> I want to live in the country that bans guns, and then all you pathetic, malignant narcissists will be standing on the sidewalk crying when the ATF comes by to take your guns to the smelting plant.
Click to expand...

Hey Joe, CUBA is open now, move there and your dreams of socialist utopia can be met.  I would even pay for your one way ticket as long as you keep your promise never to come back.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

12/04 Cuba: Lessons In Gun Control And Medicine | By: Larry Pratt


> Faria is a refugee from Fidel Castro's socialist "paradise." He still has family trapped inside that socialist island prison -- a prison that has imposed draconian gun controls throughout the island. Any prison will attempt to achieve total control of guns and restrict their possession to just the guards. Well, it turns out that the most effective tool for gun control in Cuba is the poverty spawned by socialism. Nobody can afford a gun.
> 
> Communist Cuba offers an interesting parallel to Nazi Germany. Both Hitler's Germany and Castro's Cuba were preceded by regimes that imposed gun control to keep guns out of the wrong hands. In both cases, gun control failed to keep the bad guys from getting all the guns they wanted and using them to consolidate their grip on power following seizure of the reins of government.


 We conservatives, Joe, understand history, and we know what liberals would do to US if we gave up our guns that are our protection.  Joe, you are just too stupid to know better.  Please if guns scare the begeezus out of you so much, go to Cuba, get a nice government apartment there, free healthcare, and not have to worry about guns.  What a moron, Joe is.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Iceweasel said:


> Why are you guys talking to that retard?


Ice.

I don't have a problem with Joe.

I could care less what he thinks.

I'm just here to discuss issues and to understand why people believe what they believe.

Actually I'm just having fun with this place.

I haven't been here long. He doesn't know me.

He posts the same thing in damned near every post and I've seen his ass handed to him every time.

Sometimes he can be tedious but I'm not going to let him bother me.

If you Google " Yousaidwhat" you will find that it is all about parody and lampoon.

Like Bon Scott said.

I'm just having fun!


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suicides don't count. People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what fun would that be.
> 
> I want to live in the country that bans guns, and then all you pathetic, malignant narcissists will be standing on the sidewalk crying when the ATF comes by to take your guns to the smelting plant.
Click to expand...

Suggestion?

Pack your bags and move OUT!


----------



## Iceweasel

Yousaidwhat said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you guys talking to that retard?
> 
> 
> 
> Ice.
> 
> I don't have a problem with Joe.
> 
> I could care less what he thinks.
> 
> I'm just here to discuss issues and to understand why people believe what they believe.
> 
> Actually I'm just having fun with this place.
> 
> I haven't been here long. He doesn't know me.
> 
> He posts the same thing in damned near every post and I've seen his ass handed to him every time.
> 
> Sometimes he can be tedious but I'm not going to let him bother me.
> 
> If you Google " Yousaidwhat" you will find that it is all about parody and lampoon.
> 
> Like Bon Scott said.
> 
> I'm just having fun!
Click to expand...

He doesn't care about anything but being an asshole. It's what he does. Filter him out and the forum improves noticeably.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Iceweasel said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you guys talking to that retard?
> 
> 
> 
> Ice.
> 
> I don't have a problem with Joe.
> 
> I could care less what he thinks.
> 
> I'm just here to discuss issues and to understand why people believe what they believe.
> 
> Actually I'm just having fun with this place.
> 
> I haven't been here long. He doesn't know me.
> 
> He posts the same thing in damned near every post and I've seen his ass handed to him every time.
> 
> Sometimes he can be tedious but I'm not going to let him bother me.
> 
> If you Google " Yousaidwhat" you will find that it is all about parody and lampoon.
> 
> Like Bon Scott said.
> 
> I'm just having fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care about anything but being an asshole. It's what he does. Filter him out and the forum improves noticeably.
Click to expand...

Then what am I gonna do for fun? lol.

I might miss a chance to see someone hand him ass again.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job


> *#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse.* Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others.
> *#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences.* They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.
> *#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs.* They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.
> *#9) Sociopaths never apologize.* They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.
> *#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth* _merely because they say it! _


 Once you understand the sociopath and their behaviors you can understand why Joe acts the way he does.  Obama on the other hand, shows all 10 of the sociopathic behavior and he is extremely dangerous to the common US citizen and doesn't give a rats ass, when blacks kill blacks, or tells US to be tolerant to Islam when Muslims kill Christians while yelling Allah Uh Akbar.


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.


This is a lie.


> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,


This is another lie.
Why do you need to lie to make your points?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
Click to expand...

See sociopathic behavior *#5*


----------



## nat4900

Skull Pilot said:


> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out




Ah, the "parting statement" of right wing imbeciles...."move the fuck out....: and leave this country to lunatic morons like you and your ilk? Nahhhhh.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the "parting statement" of right wing imbeciles...."move the fuck out....: and leave this country to lunatic morons like you and your ilk? Nahhhhh.
Click to expand...

I just don't get this whole move out if you don't like it.

We are all here. We are all citizens. 

What ever happened to coming together and resolving problems rationally and as adults.

Back to the subject at hand.

Nobody has to move and I'm not gonna be disarmed.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the "parting statement" of right wing imbeciles...."move the fuck out....: and leave this country to lunatic morons like you and your ilk? Nahhhhh.
Click to expand...

Of course not, just like with Cuba, now that it is open to idiots like you, instead of packing your bags and moving to your utopian paradise, you must stay here in the US and piss the fuck off every one of US who want to live our lives without some pansy ass liberal breathing down our throats demanding that we relinquish(that means give up) our weapons, so people like those who took over Cuba could fundamentally transform this country to be the same.  Sorry nitwit4900 but it ain't going to happen, now if you are man enough, bring your sorry ass over to Virginia and try to take the guns away from US.  Chicken shit will just sit in his parents basement, smoke dope, get government welfare, have his parents healthcare, and use electricity generated by fossil fuels, while the whole time bitch and moan that HE cant own a weapon because he is a pansy(scratch that) a pussy.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the "parting statement" of right wing imbeciles...."move the fuck out....: and leave this country to lunatic morons like you and your ilk? Nahhhhh.
Click to expand...

Honduras has absolute total gun control no one there can legally own a gun, move there for your gun free Utopia... Lol


----------



## Uncensored2008

alpine said:


> Shrapnel are not particles ha...
> 
> Thats how smart you are...



You are a leftist, ergo a liar.

Of course I did not say what you claim.

Are you part of Hamas? Putting nuts and ball bearings in explosives is a favorite trick of Muslim terrorists.

But a molotov will have particles from the glass and burning gasoline regardless of whether you place shrapnel in the bomb.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Ah, the "parting statement" of right wing imbeciles...."move the fuck out....: and leave this country to lunatic morons like you and your ilk? Nahhhhh.



Gnat, I get it that you are a troll just seeking a reaction. Still, there ARE a great many countries that don't protect the civil rights of their citizens, so why _DON'T_ you move to one of them? North Korea already has the government and economy you advocate; so why take the trouble to transform America in a clone of them?


----------



## nat4900

Yousaidwhat said:


> I just don't get this whole move out if you don't like it.
> 
> We are all here. We are all citizens.
> 
> What ever happened to coming together and resolving problems rationally and as adults.
> 
> Back to the subject at hand.
> 
> Nobody has to move and I'm not gonna be disarmed.




Agreed......and NO ONE on the left is stating that all guns should be outlawed...All that we are trying to get across is that SOME guns are just too dangerous to openly sell virtually to whomever wants one...They are not really "sporting" guns and since we cannot eliminate mental sickness, nor can we come up with a system to screen out mental sicknesses.....then the only logical recourse is to drastically reduce the number of dangerous guns that are manufactured to inflict...... in a very brief period of time.....maximum casualties.


----------



## nat4900

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gnat, I get it that you are a troll just seeking a reaction. Still, there ARE a great many countries that don't protect the civil rights of their citizens, so why _DON'T_ you move to one of them? North Korea already has the government and economy you advocate; so why take the trouble to transform America in a clone of them?




Moronic...as always and expected from your limited brain cells......

NO....I don;t want MY country to be like N. Korea.......But since in your stupidity you don't want to follow the sane policies of MOST industrialized countries (and our allies) I can only conclude that you are an idiot looking for some support from fellow idiots.


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the "parting statement" of right wing imbeciles...."move the fuck out....: and leave this country to lunatic morons like you and your ilk? Nahhhhh.
Click to expand...


You want to live in a country full of control freaks and you will never have that here so you are destined to be the unhappy pathetic whiner that you are now forever I guess


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Agreed......and NO ONE on the left is stating that all guns should be outlawed...All that we are trying to get across is that SOME guns are just too dangerous to openly sell virtually to whomever wants one...They are not really "sporting" guns and since we cannot eliminate mental sickness, nor can we come up with a system to screen out mental sicknesses.....then the only logical recourse is to drastically reduce the number of dangerous guns that are manufactured to inflict...... in a very brief period of time.....maximum casualties.



Say sploogy, are these "a salt gun" types used in most crimes involving firearms?

I mean, they must be, or else you would be a fucking retard for trying to ban guns that are rarely used in crime, right?

Unless your agenda is something else?


----------



## nat4900

Skull Pilot said:


> You want to live in a country full of control freaks and you will never have that here so you are destined to be the unhappy pathetic whiner that you are now forever I guess




No......As a true believer in democracy and a progressive, I believe that laws change....Our constitution gets amended...We've eliminated slavery, gave women the right to vote and extended civil rights.

In the long run progressive causes WIN......and since your ilk will not see the inside of the oval office (except as tourists) in decades to come, sanity will win out after your brain set dies out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Moronic...as always and expected from your limited brain cells......
> 
> NO....I don;t want MY country to be like N. Korea.......



Then why do you advocate for policies that transform it into such?



> But since in your stupidity you don't want to follow the sane policies of MOST industrialized countries (and our allies) I can only conclude that you are an idiot looking for some support from fellow idiots.



If you want America to become like the rotter continent, why not just move? Learn Arabic and go to Coventry England, you'll love it. Find a nice mosque to join and help ensure no one says anything not approved by your Mullah, it is the dream you have for America already in place.


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to live in a country full of control freaks and you will never have that here so you are destined to be the unhappy pathetic whiner that you are now forever I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No......As a true believer in democracy and a progressive, I believe that laws change....Our constitution gets amended...We've eliminated slavery, gave women the right to vote and extended civil rights.
> 
> In the long run progressive causes WIN......and since your ilk will not see the inside of the oval office (except as tourists) in decades to come, sanity will win out after your brain set dies out.
Click to expand...


YEah the repeal of the second amendment won't happen in your life time but feel free to stamp your little feet and hold your breath until it does


----------



## nat4900

Uncensored2008 said:


> I mean, they must be, or else you would be a fucking retard for trying to ban guns that are rarely used in crime, right?




Very few "mass killings" are done with a hand gun......Sane people know this...you, on the other hand..........


----------



## nat4900

Skull Pilot said:


> YEah the repeal of the second amendment won't happen in your life time but feel free to stamp your little feet and hold your breath until it does




Stupid response....I';m not saying "repeal' the 2nd amendment.....but we DID outlaw machine guns for a while when we thought the "darkies" would get a hold of them, didn't we???


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> YEah the repeal of the second amendment won't happen in your life time but feel free to stamp your little feet and hold your breath until it does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid response....I';m not saying "repeal' the 2nd amendment.....but we DID outlaw machine guns for a while when we thought the "darkies" would get a hold of them, didn't we???
Click to expand...

Machine guns are legal to won with the right permits, Dear.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> [
> 
> Very few "mass killings" are done with a hand gun......Sane people know this...you, on the other hand..........



About 99% are, sploogy.

You forgot that your little tin god redefined "mass shooting" to include the gangland gun fights of his homies in Chicago. When Tyrone, Jamal, and Shaquilika pull their gats and be dustin up over da crack, that is now a "mass shooting" according to that fucking retard Obama.

Can't fit an AK47 in the waistband of the pants down around your knees, dog.


----------



## nat4900

Skull Pilot said:


> Machine guns are legal to won with the right permits, Dear.




If your reading comprehension could equal one of a 3rd grader, you too would see that I wrote that we ONCE outlawed machine guns......The gun manufacturers overturned that decision....Want to guess why?


----------



## Skull Pilot

nat4900 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Machine guns are legal to won with the right permits, Dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your reading comprehension could equal one of a 3rd grader, you too would see that I wrote that we ONCE outlawed machine guns......The gun manufacturers overturned that decision....Want to guess why?
Click to expand...

You mean the trend is that we are letting MORE guns be legal not less?

Oh you really must be losing sleep over that


----------



## nat4900

Each of those babies slaughtered at Sandy Hook had 3 to 8 bullets in them.......Should make you gun lunatics really happy.


----------



## alpine

Uncensored2008 said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shrapnel are not particles ha...
> 
> Thats how smart you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a leftist, ergo a liar.
> 
> Of course I did not say what you claim.
> 
> Are you part of Hamas? Putting nuts and ball bearings in explosives is a favorite trick of Muslim terrorists.
> 
> But a molotov will have particles from the glass and burning gasoline regardless of whether you place shrapnel in the bomb.
Click to expand...


Burning gasoline has particles now ha.

Admit you dont know jack shit about what you are talking about, and we can conclude this case...


----------



## kwc57

SmokeALib said:


> Just in: Fat people can sue Lays potato chip manufacturers.



Sweet!  I'm all over that like a fat kid on a donut.


----------



## kwc57

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, I don't cower in my house clinging to my gun nor do I cling to a Bible.
> 
> I am an agnostic.
> 
> I don't know about you but I am free.
> 
> Your fear is YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my fear is picking up a newspaper on any given day and reading so many people were shot and so many people were killed and we are to accept this as normal. And don't ever try to change it because 200 year ago, some slave-raping asshole couldn't probably word a militia amendment.
Click to expand...


Does it physically hurt to be THAT stoopid?  Seriously?  I mean aside from your butt hurt, do you feel actual pain?


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
Click to expand...


Well, multiplying 2 by 2 is not easy for you either, 
but that doesnt make it a hard question for the rest of the public with above the average IQ...


----------



## alpine

andaronjim said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See sociopathic behavior *#5*
Click to expand...


No, this is called socioidiotic behavior.

Meaning; just because you are an idiot and CANT do it, doesnt mean it is hard to do...

If you know what I mean...


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, multiplying 2 by 2 is not easy for you either,
> but that doesnt make it a hard question for the rest of the public with above the average IQ...
Click to expand...


"Why do you have to lie to make your points" isn't a hard question?
You're right, it's not - you know have to lie because you know the truth doesn't support your mindless, bigoted position.
Good to see you understand this.


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's this little tidbit (above) that simply escapes right wing, gun "lovers".....which makes them either stupid or intentionally delusional.
Click to expand...


Most western democracies have voter ID laws  and border protection too.  So why won't left wing, mouth breathing, knuckle draggers like you climb on the train of enlightenment?   Are you stupid or intentionally delusional?


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, multiplying 2 by 2 is not easy for you either,
> but that doesnt make it a hard question for the rest of the public with above the average IQ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why do you have to lie to make your points" isn't a hard question?
> You're right, it's not - you know have to lie because you know the truth doesn't support your mindless, bigoted position.
> Good to see you understand this.
Click to expand...



Only if you could type RNGLISH....


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, multiplying 2 by 2 is not easy for you either,
> but that doesnt make it a hard question for the rest of the public with above the average IQ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why do you have to lie to make your points" isn't a hard question?
> You're right, it's not - you know have to lie because you know the truth doesn't support your mindless, bigoted position.
> Good to see you understand this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you could type RNGLISH....
Click to expand...


I continue to accept your concession of the point.
Please -- lie some more.


----------



## kwc57

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am done with you Joe, you cant change stupid, democrats want legal guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so then terrorists and criminals can walk into that gun free zone and start killing everyone. It happened in a Colorado Theater, Sandy Hook school, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and monthly in Chicago, NYC and other inner cities. Gun Free Zone means killing zone. You are just stupid..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, man up and admit you didn't do your research when you made a stupid statement.
> 
> The thing is, Holmes, Lanza, Cho, Mercer, Loughner were not "Criminals" or "Terrorists".  They were regular citizens who were able to get guns they had no business having, and killed dozens of people in the process.
Click to expand...


They were mentally ill citizens who became criminals by their actions.  They would have found a different way to kill if they didn't have a gun.  You've already seen the stats on people killed by hand, knife and baseball bats.  Or in McVeigh's case, a fertilizer/fuel oil bomb.


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guns are easy to convert to auto, I even shared a youtube video showing how to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And the argument is that; gun manufacturers have done nothing to prevent such applications,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, multiplying 2 by 2 is not easy for you either,
> but that doesnt make it a hard question for the rest of the public with above the average IQ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why do you have to lie to make your points" isn't a hard question?
> You're right, it's not - you know have to lie because you know the truth doesn't support your mindless, bigoted position.
> Good to see you understand this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you could type RNGLISH....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to accept your concession of the point.
> Please -- lie some more.
Click to expand...



Ok, "you are a smart person..."

Now you know that was a lie.......


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> This is another lie.
> Why do you need to lie to make your points?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, multiplying 2 by 2 is not easy for you either,
> but that doesnt make it a hard question for the rest of the public with above the average IQ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why do you have to lie to make your points" isn't a hard question?
> You're right, it's not - you know have to lie because you know the truth doesn't support your mindless, bigoted position.
> Good to see you understand this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you could type RNGLISH....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to accept your concession of the point.
> Please -- lie some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, "you are a smart person..."
> Now you know that was a lie.......
Click to expand...

Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> Each of those babies slaughtered at Sandy Hook had 3 to 8 bullets in them.......Should make you gun lunatics really happy.



Hey, was that you I saw protesting the lunacy at  the abortion clinic where babies were being ripped to pieces to be pulled out of the womb?  No?  Why not?  Hypocrite.


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, multiplying 2 by 2 is not easy for you either,
> but that doesnt make it a hard question for the rest of the public with above the average IQ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why do you have to lie to make your points" isn't a hard question?
> You're right, it's not - you know have to lie because you know the truth doesn't support your mindless, bigoted position.
> Good to see you understand this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you could type RNGLISH....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to accept your concession of the point.
> Please -- lie some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, "you are a smart person..."
> Now you know that was a lie.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
Click to expand...



No, the fact is that; ar15 guns were popular because they could have been *easily *altered to become mass shooting weapons.

This is a fact the whole world recognizes, including the court hearing this case.

Now; you can go out on the street and scream otherwise while masturbating, as much as you like. 
I guarantee you, nothing will change, except the color of your dick.....


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why do you have to lie to make your points" isn't a hard question?
> You're right, it's not - you know have to lie because you know the truth doesn't support your mindless, bigoted position.
> Good to see you understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you could type RNGLISH....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to accept your concession of the point.
> Please -- lie some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, "you are a smart person..."
> Now you know that was a lie.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the fact is that; ar15 guns were popular because they could have been *easily *altered to become mass shooting weapons.
Click to expand...

This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suicides don't count. People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what fun would that be.
> 
> I want to live in the country that bans guns, and then all you pathetic, malignant narcissists will be standing on the sidewalk crying when the ATF comes by to take your guns to the smelting plant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'll never happen but i highly suggest you hold your breath until it does
Click to expand...

sometimes wishes do come true.


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you could type RNGLISH....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to accept your concession of the point.
> Please -- lie some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, "you are a smart person..."
> Now you know that was a lie.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the fact is that; ar15 guns were popular because they could have been *easily *altered to become mass shooting weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
Click to expand...



Your dick started to change color yet?


----------



## JoeB131

Yousaidwhat said:


> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.



I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point. 

I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.  

And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to accept your concession of the point.
> Please -- lie some more.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, "you are a smart person..."
> Now you know that was a lie.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the fact is that; ar15 guns were popular because they could have been *easily *altered to become mass shooting weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your dick started to change color yet?
Click to expand...

Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> Hey Joe, CUBA is open now, move there and your dreams of socialist utopia can be met. I would even pay for your one way ticket as long as you keep your promise never to come back.



I've got a better idea.  Why don't all you Wingnuts move to Somalia.  They've got religious crazies and a shitload of guns... you'd probably be happy there... except for all the black people.


----------



## Rustic

The only gun control that works is criminal control, enforse existing laws, don't make up new frivolous one. Leave law abiding citizens alone, by that Meaning stay out of their personal business. So Called "gun violence" is a non-issue in this country(putting homicides, suicides an accidental death all in one category is lying) all of the problems we have stem from criminal behavior most of which is repeat offenders...
New so-called "commonsense gun laws" is a waste of time and money and will only make matters worse, nutters… LOL


----------



## Yousaidwhat

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
Click to expand...

I was pulling your chain Joe.

Lighten up Slick.

Thanks for your service.

I'd like to see the link that the Republican Party killed those children.


----------



## Rustic

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, CUBA is open now, move there and your dreams of socialist utopia can be met. I would even pay for your one way ticket as long as you keep your promise never to come back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a better idea.  Why don't all you Wingnuts move to Somalia.  They've got religious crazies and a shitload of guns... you'd probably be happy there... except for all the black people.
Click to expand...

Honduras is anti-gun nuts wet dream, they have absolute gun control no one is allowed by law to legally to own a firearm of any sort there… Check out for yourself what their crime rate is. LOL


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, "you are a smart person..."
> Now you know that was a lie.......
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the fact is that; ar15 guns were popular because they could have been *easily *altered to become mass shooting weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your dick started to change color yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
Click to expand...


Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon... 
Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...



Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess


----------



## Rustic

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pulling your chain Joe.
> 
> Lighten up Slick.
> 
> Thanks for your service.
> 
> I'd like to see the link that the Republican Party killed those children.
Click to expand...

Joe doesn't get out of his moms basement that much…


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess



You put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position, and then try to claim victory?
Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
Run along now, and be sure to tuck that tail nice and tight.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the fact is that; ar15 guns were popular because they could have been *easily *altered to become mass shooting weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your dick started to change color yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
Click to expand...

Um!

The finish line is over here.


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the fact is that; ar15 guns were popular because they could have been *easily *altered to become mass shooting weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your dick started to change color yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um!
> 
> The finish line is over here.
Click to expand...



I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your dick started to change color yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um!
> 
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely Slick!

I don't bend like reed in wind.

And I surely don't break that easily.


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; you know you cannot prove your statement true.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your dick started to change color yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
Click to expand...


Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.


----------



## Contumacious

Yousaidwhat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pulling your chain Joe.
> 
> Lighten up Slick.
> 
> Thanks for your service.
> 
> I'd like to see the link that the Republican Party killed those children.
Click to expand...



Actually, what killed those children was "the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990"

*Yesterday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced H.R. 86, the Safe Students Act, which would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. *The bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007, repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended Act. “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments,” said Massie. “Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.” Representative Massie concluded: “A bigger federal government can’t solve this problem. Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.” As John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime writes, “Ask yourself: Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying ‘this house is a gun-free zone’?  But if you wouldn’t put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?” Original Cosponsors include: Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). Congressman Massie is Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus in the 114th Congress. (Source)


----------



## Yousaidwhat

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your dick started to change color yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
Click to expand...

I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.

Should we inform him that he has to load it first.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Yousaidwhat said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
Click to expand...

Nah.
Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.


----------



## Rustic

Gun free zone's make absolutely zero sense...


----------



## JoeB131

Contumacious said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pulling your chain Joe.
> 
> Lighten up Slick.
> 
> Thanks for your service.
> 
> I'd like to see the link that the Republican Party killed those children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what killed those children was "the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990"
> 
> *Yesterday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced H.R. 86, the Safe Students Act, which would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. *The bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007, repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended Act. “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments,” said Massie. “Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.” Representative Massie concluded: “A bigger federal government can’t solve this problem. Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.” As John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime writes, “Ask yourself: Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying ‘this house is a gun-free zone’?  But if you wouldn’t put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?” Original Cosponsors include: Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). Congressman Massie is Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus in the 114th Congress. (Source)
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's the ticket.  Put a bunch of guns in the schools where the kids can get at them, because, that's going to work really well.  

Just ask the teacher who got fired after a student stole naked images off her cell phone.


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing her changes the fact that you put up two lies and tried to pass them off an a reasoned, rational position.
> Now, this clearly indicates that you're a mindless bigot -- but what does it say about your IQ?
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
Click to expand...



You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.

I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> 
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
Click to expand...

Oh look - another lie.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

M14 Shooter said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> 
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.
> 
> I guess letting him know of the safety won't matter. lol.
Click to expand...


----------



## alpine

M14 Shooter said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look - another lie.
Click to expand...



I can see you fanning a loaded rifle around like you fanning your dick.
Which makes a lot of sense...


----------



## Contumacious

JoeB131 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pulling your chain Joe.
> 
> Lighten up Slick.
> 
> Thanks for your service.
> 
> I'd like to see the link that the Republican Party killed those children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what killed those children was "the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990"
> 
> *Yesterday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced H.R. 86, the Safe Students Act, which would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. *The bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007, repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended Act. “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments,” said Massie. “Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.” Representative Massie concluded: “A bigger federal government can’t solve this problem. Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.” As John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime writes, “Ask yourself: Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying ‘this house is a gun-free zone’?  But if you wouldn’t put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?” Original Cosponsors include: Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). Congressman Massie is Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus in the 114th Congress. (Source)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the ticket.  Put a bunch of guns in the schools where the kids can get at them, because, that's going to work really well.
> 
> Just ask the teacher who got fired after a student stole naked images off her cell phone.
Click to expand...



Has the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, worked well at Sandy Hook , et al?


By the way abolishing the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990 is NOT advocating  irresponsibility. Anyone who leaves a gun exposed and unattended should be immediately terminated.


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.
> 
> I guess letting him know of the safety won't matter. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.

Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you get well soon my friend. You need a doctor soon...
> Too much masturbation unfortunately has this impact. I warned you tho...
> Well, since people who represent the other side of the argument got broken, like a record, means once again I prevail I guess
> 
> 
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> 
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Like I don't know anything about firearms.

Yes. You are pathetic. 

What do you know. You are failing miserably in this conversation.

What is my position oh wise one?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look - another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you fanning a loaded rifle around like you fanning your dick.
> Which makes a lot of sense...
Click to expand...

That was really original.

All you have is blanks.

There we go with the dicks again.

Homo much?


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um!
> The finish line is over here.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> 
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> Like I don't know anything about firearms.
> 
> Yes. You are pathetic.
> 
> What do you know. You are failing miserably in this conversation.
> 
> What is my position oh wise one?
Click to expand...



Your position is: "oh dont worry, it is in safety honey..."


You made your point.....


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.
> 
> I guess letting him know of the safety won't matter. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.
> 
> Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....
Click to expand...

It's not a gun. And I don't flail around like a mental case.

like you.


----------



## Rustic

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look - another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you fanning a loaded rifle around like you fanning your dick.
> Which makes a lot of sense...
Click to expand...


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look - another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you fanning a loaded rifle around like you fanning your dick.
> Which makes a lot of sense...
Click to expand...

Is this all you have?

Got along way to the finish line.

Can't you keep up?


----------



## M14 Shooter

alpine said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look - another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see you fanning a loaded rifle around like you fanning your dick.
> Which makes a lot of sense...
Click to expand...

Aww...  is puddy upset that he can only support his positions with lies?
If you ever decide to stop being a mindless bigot, maybe you'll see a change in that.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.
> 
> I guess letting him know of the safety won't matter. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.
> 
> Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....
Click to expand...

I'm not like you.


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.
> 
> I guess letting him know of the safety won't matter. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.
> 
> Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not like you.
Click to expand...


Puhahahahah, who said you were?
You are the type that shoots himself in "safety"...


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, you gonna break like the other guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> 
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> Like I don't know anything about firearms.
> 
> Yes. You are pathetic.
> 
> What do you know. You are failing miserably in this conversation.
> 
> What is my position oh wise one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is: "oh dont worry, it is in safety honey..."
> 
> 
> You made your point.....
Click to expand...

I'm talking about you.

My wife knows more about firearms than you do.


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> 
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> Like I don't know anything about firearms.
> 
> Yes. You are pathetic.
> 
> What do you know. You are failing miserably in this conversation.
> 
> What is my position oh wise one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is: "oh dont worry, it is in safety honey..."
> 
> 
> You made your point.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about you.
> 
> My wife knows more about firearms than you do.
Click to expand...



Yes, she knows not be be around you when you have one...
Thats a life saver


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.
> Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.
> 
> I guess letting him know of the safety won't matter. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.
> 
> Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhahahahah, who said you were?
> You are the type that shoots himself in "safety"...
Click to expand...

And you think you're winning this debate.

Childish and immature.

Grow up.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

2aguy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here says it all. Joe is a government lackey and wants the government to take our constitutionally guaranteed rights with violence and force. He is the one who needs to be locked up, as a traitor to America and the people. There was a time in history when he would have been tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a guy who gets sick and tired of watching children get wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.  I used to be one oyou wingnuts, making these same arguments..  until I realized I couldn't.
> 
> Used to be a time the NRA supported common sense gun laws. In the 1960s, when armed terrorists like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were running amok, Republicans supported gun laws and the NRA helped write them and no one talked any crazy shit about how we needs our guns to overthrow the gummit.
> 
> You will never overthrow the government, but you are racking up a lot of preschoolers.  People like you made Adam Lanza possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What common sense gun law would have stopped any shooting in the past 5 years
> 
> And a ban isn't common sense
> 
> And how many preschoolers have been gunned down since Newtown?  How many have died in a fall, drowned in a pool, been poisoned, or beaten to death by their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is the leading cause of death for children ages 1-4....not guns....
Click to expand...


Sue the hell out of the pool manufacturers then. They are a bunch of slimy money hungry corporate dirt bags putting a product out which is meant to lure children to their death.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> 
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> Like I don't know anything about firearms.
> 
> Yes. You are pathetic.
> 
> What do you know. You are failing miserably in this conversation.
> 
> What is my position oh wise one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is: "oh dont worry, it is in safety honey..."
> 
> 
> You made your point.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about you.
> 
> My wife knows more about firearms than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she knows not be be around you when you have one...
> Thats a life saver
Click to expand...

OK Joe


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Yousaidwhat said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asks he who fully understands he has to lie to make a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> 
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> Like I don't know anything about firearms.
> 
> Yes. You are pathetic.
> 
> What do you know. You are failing miserably in this conversation.
> 
> What is my position oh wise one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is: "oh dont worry, it is in safety honey..."
> 
> 
> You made your point.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about you.
> 
> My wife knows more about firearms than you do.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to be anything like you.

Oh look!

Mommy has your nap snack ready.


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.
> Given that we know the chances of him shooting himself, we'd be charged as accessories.
> 
> I guess letting him know of the safety won't matter. lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.
> 
> Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhahahahah, who said you were?
> You are the type that shoots himself in "safety"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think you're winning this debate.
> 
> Childish and immature.
> 
> Grow up.
Click to expand...



What, you gonna cwyyyy now...

He thinks he is "debating" something


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope that if he happens to pick up a firearm that he actually knows which way to point it so that he doesn't kill himself.
> 
> Should we inform him that he has to load it first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont point a gun to any direction, unless you gonna shoot it in that direction.
> 
> I can see neither of you know the mean ing of the word "responsibility", which makes a lot of sense considering your positions. How PATHETIC.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> Like I don't know anything about firearms.
> 
> Yes. You are pathetic.
> 
> What do you know. You are failing miserably in this conversation.
> 
> What is my position oh wise one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is: "oh dont worry, it is in safety honey..."
> 
> 
> You made your point.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about you.
> 
> My wife knows more about firearms than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't want to be anything like you.
> 
> Oh look!
> 
> Mommy has your nap snack ready.
Click to expand...



Now you started quoting yourself ha.

I told you people, masturbating while posting is not good for your health.




Unfortunately, this one is broken too......


----------



## Yousaidwhat

alpine said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.
> 
> Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhahahahah, who said you were?
> You are the type that shoots himself in "safety"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think you're winning this debate.
> 
> Childish and immature.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What, you gonna cwyyyy now...
> 
> He thinks he is "debating" something
Click to expand...

I don't debate children.

I'm talking about the whole thread.

Damn you are lost aren't you?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Did you run to your safe space.

My micro-aggression harm your sensitivity, snowflake?


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I have seen plenty of "but it was in safety" idiots shooting themselves.
> 
> Just make sure you shoot yourself rather than some another human being, when you fire that gun accidentally....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhahahahah, who said you were?
> You are the type that shoots himself in "safety"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think you're winning this debate.
> 
> Childish and immature.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What, you gonna cwyyyy now...
> 
> He thinks he is "debating" something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't debate children.
> 
> I'm talking about the whole thread.
> 
> Damn you are lost aren't you?
Click to expand...



You are the one who started all this, dont blame it on me.
You are the one all of a sudden got everything personal, just like a baby.
You cant even come up with a post that would argue any point of view, other than making stupid childish comments about the people involved in it.

You are a weak bonehead, in my honest opinion....


----------



## alpine

Yousaidwhat said:


> Did you run to your safe space.
> 
> My micro-aggression harm your sensitivity, snowflake?



Micro-aggression?

And when did you do that exactly?

You have been sweet like a carrot cake all along...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Yousaidwhat said:


> Did you run to your safe space.
> My micro-aggression harm your sensitivity, snowflake?


He's trolling you.   
Stop feeding him and he goes away.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

M14 Shooter said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you run to your safe space.
> My micro-aggression harm your sensitivity, snowflake?
> 
> 
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Stop feeding him and he goes away.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about him.

I know he is a troll.


----------



## alpine

just use the fucking private messaging, if you guys wanna hook up with each other....


----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> Most western democracies have voter ID laws and border protection too. So why won't left wing, mouth breathing, knuckle draggers like you climb on the train of enlightenment? Are you stupid or intentionally delusional?



Its your extreme stupidity that gives morons within your ilk a really bad name.....

Let's see...because European countries have voter ID laws and border protection, we in the US MUST have everyone with semi-automatic weapons?

(Be honest, someone has to turn on the 'puter for you......right?)


----------



## FA_Q2

nat4900 said:


> Obviously there is an inordinate amount of fear among right wingers; terrible way to live, clutching their guns, thumping their bibles and scared shit-less of "darkies".......Whenever there's a mass shooting by some deranged bastard, they flood the gun stores to get MORE guns and ammunition.
> 
> How many of these gun-loving right wingers on here alone are just one step away from a pissed off moment to become yet another Lanza?





nat4900 said:


> Obviously there is an inordinate amount of fear among right wingers; terrible way to live, clutching their guns, thumping their bibles and scared shit-less of "darkies".......Whenever there's a mass shooting by some deranged bastard, they flood the gun stores to get MORE guns and ammunition.
> 
> How many of these gun-loving right wingers on here alone are just one step away from a pissed off moment to become yet another Lanza?


And yet you and the others wanting to ban or increase gun control want to do so out of abject fear of guns.

Pure projection.  It always amazes me how many of those that want to demand grater gun control because they are afraid of those guns try and demand that it is actually legal gun owners that live in fear.  Their fear is evedent in the arguments that they present.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skull Pilot said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to live in a country full of control freaks and you will never have that here so you are destined to be the unhappy pathetic whiner that you are now forever I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No......As a true believer in democracy and a progressive, I believe that laws change....Our constitution gets amended...We've eliminated slavery, gave women the right to vote and extended civil rights.
> 
> In the long run progressive causes WIN......and since your ilk will not see the inside of the oval office (except as tourists) in decades to come, sanity will win out after your brain set dies out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YEah the repeal of the second amendment won't happen in your life time but feel free to stamp your little feet and hold your breath until it does
Click to expand...


You don't need a repeal to make guns illegal in this country.  What you need are a majority of judges in the Supreme Court to say they are not protected by the Constitution, then state by state can make guns illegal. 

This can very well happen in our lifetime if Hillary gets into the White House.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get this whole move out if you don't like it.
> 
> We are all here. We are all citizens.
> 
> What ever happened to coming together and resolving problems rationally and as adults.
> 
> Back to the subject at hand.
> 
> Nobody has to move and I'm not gonna be disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed......and NO ONE on the left is stating that all guns should be outlawed...All that we are trying to get across is that SOME guns are just too dangerous to openly sell virtually to whomever wants one...They are not really "sporting" guns and since we cannot eliminate mental sickness, nor can we come up with a system to screen out mental sicknesses.....then the only logical recourse is to drastically reduce the number of dangerous guns that are manufactured to inflict...... in a very brief period of time.....maximum casualties.
Click to expand...


Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence


----------



## FA_Q2

alpine said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the knife can easily be transformed into an automatic killing machine that can massacre scores of people like in Sandy Hook, then I guess the knife manufacturer has a responsibility, I would think.
> 
> And this is a case especially when that gun manufacturer "intentionally" allows this to happen, as a marketing pitch...
Click to expand...

And?  You say that as though there is an issue here.  How many people are killed with such weapons that have been modified?  Likely less than have been hit by lightning every year. 

The fact is this is simply not done.  Likely because such weapons being modified to fully automatic versions would be far less effective than the semi-automatic version.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> 33,000 people die from guns every year, and every year the National Rampage Association fights tooth and nail against even the most reasonable precautions, like closing the gun show loophole or preventing people on the No fly List from buying guns.



So tell us how many people on the No Fly List or consumer at a gun show ever bought a weapon and went on a killing spree?  

That's the entire point of our side: the laws you want to see enacted won't do squat.  They probably wouldn't save one life.  Yet just because it's some kind of gun law.......any kind of gun law,  you want to see those laws anyway.  

And then when those laws don't work, you'll come up with more laws.  And when that doesn't work, even more laws yet. 

We know how liberalism works.  It's an increment system until they eventually get what they want; in this case, all guns outlawed.  

You stop an infection when it first starts, not wait until it's ready to kill you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> this isn't the goal of your beloved gun industry, though. Their goal is to sell guns to the crooks so people like you and Dick Tiny and Ray-Cist from Cleveland will all be really scared and want guns, too. And then when our inner cities become free fire zones, the police will need to arm themselves like soliders to break up simple domestic violence issues.



That's already happening Joe......in liberal cities and states with the toughest gun laws in the country.


----------



## kwc57

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
Click to expand...


And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most western democracies have voter ID laws and border protection too. So why won't left wing, mouth breathing, knuckle draggers like you climb on the train of enlightenment? Are you stupid or intentionally delusional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its your extreme stupidity that gives morons within your ilk a really bad name.....
> 
> Let's see...because European countries have voter ID laws and border protection, we in the US MUST have everyone with semi-automatic weapons?
> 
> (Be honest, someone has to turn on the 'puter for you......right?)
Click to expand...


Wow, not only are you a liar and dishonest shit, your retarded to boot.  It's called an analogy.  When you get beyond 3rd grade, a teacher will explain it to you.  I'll try, but I have zero confidence you'll grasp the concept, simple as it may be.  If you are going to claim that we need to adopt the gun laws of other western democracies because they are so smart, wise and enlightened, then it follows that you would admire their other laws we don't have.  Since they all practice voter ID laws, you should be happy with it as well.  If that is just too hard for your widdle bwain, I can try to dumb it down and type slower so you can understand.


----------



## ChrisL

kwc57 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.
Click to expand...


Stop bringing abortion into this discussion.


----------



## nat4900

FA_Q2 said:


> And yet you and the others wanting to ban or increase gun control want to do so out of abject fear of guns.
> 
> Pure projection. It always amazes me how many of those that want to demand grater gun control because they are afraid of those guns try and demand that it is actually legal gun owners that live in fear. Their fear is evedent in the arguments that they present.



As usual, wrong counter argument.......Exactly who:

.......states that I need guns to protect my self from the government thugs?
.......states that I need ANY and ALL guns to defend my family and property?
.......states that "I'll never give up my guns" because I don't want to be relocated to a camp by a foreign-born, Muslim president?
.......states that I need my guns because those Mexicans are taking jobs from Americans
.......states that I need my guns to kill abortion clinic workers............and

Who simply states that rapid-fire, assault-style weapons should NOT be manufactured and sold for profit, so that once normal citizens don't FLIP and get pissed off one day......and slaughter pre-schoolers?

YOU JUDGE who lives in fear.


----------



## nat4900

Ray From Cleveland said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get this whole move out if you don't like it.
> 
> We are all here. We are all citizens.
> 
> What ever happened to coming together and resolving problems rationally and as adults.
> 
> Back to the subject at hand.
> 
> Nobody has to move and I'm not gonna be disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed......and NO ONE on the left is stating that all guns should be outlawed...All that we are trying to get across is that SOME guns are just too dangerous to openly sell virtually to whomever wants one...They are not really "sporting" guns and since we cannot eliminate mental sickness, nor can we come up with a system to screen out mental sicknesses.....then the only logical recourse is to drastically reduce the number of dangerous guns that are manufactured to inflict...... in a very brief period of time.....maximum casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Click to expand...



Marvelous.........this nitwit found an article written TWELVE years ago to justify his imbeciltiy,,,,,


Well, once the ban on the sale of assault weapons was lifted back in 2004 ......what has occured since then???


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get this whole move out if you don't like it.
> 
> We are all here. We are all citizens.
> 
> What ever happened to coming together and resolving problems rationally and as adults.
> 
> Back to the subject at hand.
> 
> Nobody has to move and I'm not gonna be disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed......and NO ONE on the left is stating that all guns should be outlawed...All that we are trying to get across is that SOME guns are just too dangerous to openly sell virtually to whomever wants one...They are not really "sporting" guns and since we cannot eliminate mental sickness, nor can we come up with a system to screen out mental sicknesses.....then the only logical recourse is to drastically reduce the number of dangerous guns that are manufactured to inflict...... in a very brief period of time.....maximum casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marvelous.........this nitwit found an article written TWELVE years ago to justify his imbeciltiy,,,,,
> 
> 
> Well, once the ban on the sale of assault weapons was lifted back in 2004 ......what has occured since then???
Click to expand...


Thanks for asking Nitwit. 

Since the mid 90's, violence and gun violence in particular have been on the decline in the US.  This is in proportion to more and more states adopting Conceal Carry laws and changing gun laws to the advantage of the victim instead of the criminal. 

This is in stark contrast to places like Australia and Great Britain who have experienced an increase in crime and gun deaths since their ban on firearms, or no improvement at all in the long term. 

Since we are now on the right track, liberals still fight to reverse what we've gained, but of course, this is typical of liberalism and liberal policies.


----------



## nat4900

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Since we are now on the right track, liberals still fight to reverse what we've gained, but of course, this is typical of liberalism and liberal policies.




Ahhhh we are on the "right track".....and we could be better if EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN carries a gun (just like in the old west in the 1870s, correct?)

....and our mass shootings and  slaughter of 5 and 6 years old have DECLINED since 12 years ago????


----------



## Rustic

More guns = less crime


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we are now on the right track, liberals still fight to reverse what we've gained, but of course, this is typical of liberalism and liberal policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh we are on the "right track".....and we could be better if EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN carries a gun (just like in the old west in the 1870s, correct?)
> 
> ....and our mass shootings and  slaughter of 5 and 6 years old have DECLINED since 12 years ago????
Click to expand...


No, that's because crazy people don't care who has guns.  That's besides the fact mass shootings don't account for nearly the amount of gun deaths in this country.  They are just sensationalized by the media.  We have just as many people getting shot in areas like mine, Chicago, Detroit and such in one year than we have the last ten mass shootings throughout the years.


----------



## kwc57

ChrisL said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop bringing abortion into this discussion.
Click to expand...


The discussion is the murder of children.  Does the means used really matter?  It shouldn't.  If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left.  They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda.  When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously.  Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you and the others wanting to ban or increase gun control want to do so out of abject fear of guns.
> 
> Pure projection. It always amazes me how many of those that want to demand grater gun control because they are afraid of those guns try and demand that it is actually legal gun owners that live in fear. Their fear is evedent in the arguments that they present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, wrong counter argument.......Exactly who:
> 
> .......states that I need guns to protect my self from the government thugs?
> .......states that I need ANY and ALL guns to defend my family and property?
> .......states that "I'll never give up my guns" because I don't want to be relocated to a camp by a foreign-born, Muslim president?
> .......states that I need my guns because those Mexicans are taking jobs from Americans
> .......states that I need my guns to kill abortion clinic workers............and
> 
> Who simply states that rapid-fire, assault-style weapons should NOT be manufactured and sold for profit, so that once normal citizens don't FLIP and get pissed off one day......and slaughter pre-schoolers?
> 
> YOU JUDGE who lives in fear.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with "guns"... It's all about control...
Control freaks like yourself would not understand... Lol


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you and the others wanting to ban or increase gun control want to do so out of abject fear of guns.
> 
> Pure projection. It always amazes me how many of those that want to demand grater gun control because they are afraid of those guns try and demand that it is actually legal gun owners that live in fear. Their fear is evedent in the arguments that they present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, wrong counter argument.......Exactly who:
> 
> .......states that I need guns to protect my self from the government thugs?
> .......states that I need ANY and ALL guns to defend my family and property?
> .......states that "I'll never give up my guns" because I don't want to be relocated to a camp by a foreign-born, Muslim president?
> .......states that I need my guns because those Mexicans are taking jobs from Americans
> .......states that I need my guns to kill abortion clinic workers............and
> 
> Who simply states that rapid-fire, assault-style weapons should NOT be manufactured and sold for profit, so that once normal citizens don't FLIP and get pissed off one day......and slaughter pre-schoolers?
> 
> YOU JUDGE who lives in fear.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get this whole move out if you don't like it.
> 
> We are all here. We are all citizens.
> 
> What ever happened to coming together and resolving problems rationally and as adults.
> 
> Back to the subject at hand.
> 
> Nobody has to move and I'm not gonna be disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed......and NO ONE on the left is stating that all guns should be outlawed...All that we are trying to get across is that SOME guns are just too dangerous to openly sell virtually to whomever wants one...They are not really "sporting" guns and since we cannot eliminate mental sickness, nor can we come up with a system to screen out mental sicknesses.....then the only logical recourse is to drastically reduce the number of dangerous guns that are manufactured to inflict...... in a very brief period of time.....maximum casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marvelous.........this nitwit found an article written TWELVE years ago to justify his imbeciltiy,,,,,
> 
> 
> Well, once the ban on the sale of assault weapons was lifted back in 2004 ......what has occured since then???
Click to expand...


----------



## hadit

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> liberals want our guns taken away, so they can take over the country and really turn it into a Socialist Utopia just like Venezuela and the old USSR. Problem with the liberals, is that as long as the 2nd amendment allows "*LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"* to protect themselves for governments foreign and domestic, the liberals will continue to rant and rave. I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you aren't shooting "criminals", guy.   We have 33,000 gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminals.  The ones who were weren't doing things that merited killing them.
> 
> Most western democracies ban private gun ownership, and they are just as capitalist as we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suicides don't count.  People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
Click to expand...

Isn't that really the point?  Instead of just going where they can feel safe (even if they are not), they want to force everyone else to give up their weapons.  Liberals really are not about free choice, are they?


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suicides don't count. People are allowed to kill themselves if they want to.
> 
> And if you want to live in a country that bans guns then by all means move the fuck out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what fun would that be.
> 
> I want to live in the country that bans guns, and then all you pathetic, malignant narcissists will be standing on the sidewalk crying when the ATF comes by to take your guns to the smelting plant.
Click to expand...

So go already.  This isn't the country where you want to be.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, CUBA is open now, move there and your dreams of socialist utopia can be met. I would even pay for your one way ticket as long as you keep your promise never to come back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a better idea.  Why don't all you Wingnuts move to Somalia.  They've got religious crazies and a shitload of guns... you'd probably be happy there... except for all the black people.
Click to expand...

Last I heard, you were saying you want to live in a country where private gun ownership is banned.  That's not here.  The people who want to live in a country where private gun ownership is legal want to live here.  That's not going to change, so the logical thing for you to do in order to be happy is to move.  Otherwise, you're just going to continue ranting and raving and getting precisely nowhere.  How miserable would be that existence.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pulling your chain Joe.
> 
> Lighten up Slick.
> 
> Thanks for your service.
> 
> I'd like to see the link that the Republican Party killed those children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what killed those children was "the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990"
> 
> *Yesterday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced H.R. 86, the Safe Students Act, which would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. *The bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007, repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended Act. “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments,” said Massie. “Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.” Representative Massie concluded: “A bigger federal government can’t solve this problem. Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.” As John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime writes, “Ask yourself: Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying ‘this house is a gun-free zone’?  But if you wouldn’t put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?” Original Cosponsors include: Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). Congressman Massie is Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus in the 114th Congress. (Source)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the ticket.  Put a bunch of guns in the schools where the kids can get at them, because, that's going to work really well.
> 
> Just ask the teacher who got fired after a student stole naked images off her cell phone.
Click to expand...

Better ban private ownership of cell phones just to be safe.


----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> The discussion is the murder of children. Does the means used really matter? It shouldn't. If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left. They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda. When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously. Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.





VERY stupid and biased response.....

An aborted fetus IS NOT a child...If you religious zealots would get this simple fact through your head, you'd take the first step to come out of the inquisition mindset.......Given your moronic rationale, you'd have us believe that "life begins" at the point of lustful thoughts.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children. Does the means used really matter? It shouldn't. If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left. They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda. When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously. Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VERY stupid and biased response.....
> 
> An aborted fetus IS NOT a child...If you religious zealots would get this simple fact through your head, you'd take the first step to come out of the inquisition mindset.......Given your moronic rationale, you'd have us believe that "life begins" at the point of lustful thoughts.
Click to expand...

Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child.  No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby.  A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms.  But you totally insane liberals,  hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals.  Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place.  Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells.  Dumbass.  Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything.  Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children. Does the means used really matter? It shouldn't. If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left. They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda. When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously. Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VERY stupid and biased response.....
> 
> An aborted fetus IS NOT a child...If you religious zealots would get this simple fact through your head, you'd take the first step to come out of the inquisition mindset.......Given your moronic rationale, you'd have us believe that "life begins" at the point of lustful thoughts.
Click to expand...


A fetus isn't a child...........and blacks and Jews aren't real people.  I've seen your kind before.  Fuck off loser.


----------



## kwc57

andaronjim said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children. Does the means used really matter? It shouldn't. If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left. They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda. When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously. Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VERY stupid and biased response.....
> 
> An aborted fetus IS NOT a child...If you religious zealots would get this simple fact through your head, you'd take the first step to come out of the inquisition mindset.......Given your moronic rationale, you'd have us believe that "life begins" at the point of lustful thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child.  No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby.  A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms.  But you totally insane liberals,  hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals.  Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place.  Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells.  Dumbass.  Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything.  Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.
Click to expand...


Funny how the lefties like Natalie considers themselves sophisticated, enlightened and tolerant, but maintain a culture of hate and death isn't it?


----------



## nat4900

kwc57 said:


> Funny how the lefties like Natalie considers themselves sophisticated, enlightened and tolerant, but maintain a culture of hate and death isn't it?




I think it may be time for you to have another enema....LOL


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child. No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby. A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms. But you totally insane liberals, hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals. Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place. Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells. Dumbass. Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything. Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.




Lots of kids are ready for adoption....Care to step up and show how far your "love" of unwanted children you're willing to adopt you hypocritical bastards?


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child. No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby. A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms. But you totally insane liberals, hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals. Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place. Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells. Dumbass. Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything. Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of kids are ready for adoption....Care to step up and show how far your "love" of unwanted children you're willing to adopt you hypocritical bastards?
Click to expand...

 
Why bother when you can just kill them instead, eh Natalie? problem solved!


----------



## ChrisL

kwc57 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop bringing abortion into this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children.  Does the means used really matter?  It shouldn't.  If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left.  They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda.  When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously.  Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of abortion threads if you want to talk about abortion.  If you weren't so caught up in yourself, you would realize that I'm NOT anti-gun.  I am a PRO rights person.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

ChrisL said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop bringing abortion into this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children.  Does the means used really matter?  It shouldn't.  If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left.  They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda.  When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously.  Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of abortion threads if you want to talk about abortion.  If you weren't so caught up in yourself, you would realize that I'm NOT anti-gun.  I am a PRO rights person.
Click to expand...

Just making a comparison about liberals.  They want to kill babies in or out of the womb as Joe says, but then when they are being indoctrinated in public schools, he FEELS indignant when another liberal enters a school and aborts those children just a few years later.  Right Joe?


----------



## ChrisL

kwc57 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child. No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby. A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms. But you totally insane liberals, hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals. Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place. Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells. Dumbass. Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything. Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of kids are ready for adoption....Care to step up and show how far your "love" of unwanted children you're willing to adopt you hypocritical bastards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother when you can just kill them instead, eh Natalie? problem solved!
Click to expand...


I posted several videos on another gun control thread about why you should not bring the abortion topic into the gun control debate!  You don't bring many people onto OUR side by using this argument.


----------



## kwc57

ChrisL said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> No wonder no one here takes you seriously.
> 
> Insults and tiny penis posts.
> 
> Peeking through people's Windows again?
> 
> *Joe. You never served one minute in the Military.*
> 
> You were never a Republican right winger turned liberal.
> 
> You sir are just a keyboard Coward with no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop bringing abortion into this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children.  Does the means used really matter?  It shouldn't.  If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left.  They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda.  When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously.  Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of abortion threads if you want to talk about abortion.  If you weren't so caught up in yourself, you would realize that I'm NOT anti-gun.  I am a PRO rights person.
Click to expand...


Let me put two and two together for you.  The concern here is the death of children.  Why does the particular means matter when discussing it?  Yes, a child dying by gunshot is tragic.  Children dying by abortion is tragic.  One happens with far more frequency than the other.  The tragedy is multiplied.  You'd think that someone who is horrified by the death of children would want to do something about the death of children regardless of the cause of death.  But they don't.  Because the real concern isn't children.  The real concern is their hate and fear of an inanimate object.  It's always telling that the people who cry for "the children" killed by guns don't give two shits and a holler about the exponentially more killed by abortion.  The abortion question is a test to see what the real agenda is.  The real agenda is guns, not children.  The gun grabbers could care less how many children die because the vast majority of gun grabbers are pro-abortion supporters who are coldly indifferent to the death of children.  And that is how 2 and 2 make 4.


----------



## kwc57

ChrisL said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child. No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby. A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms. But you totally insane liberals, hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals. Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place. Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells. Dumbass. Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything. Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of kids are ready for adoption....Care to step up and show how far your "love" of unwanted children you're willing to adopt you hypocritical bastards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother when you can just kill them instead, eh Natalie? problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted several videos on another gun control thread about why you should not bring the abortion topic into the gun control debate!  You don't bring many people onto OUR side by using this argument.
Click to expand...


You're not going to bring any gun grabber over to your side.  Bringing up abortion exposes their false agenda of concern for children.  It has nothing to do with children.


----------



## ChrisL

kwc57 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals and a DD214 that says otherwise.   But that's not the point.
> 
> I didn't "turn liberal"  The Republican Party lost it's FUCKING MIND.
> 
> And we've got the dead pre-schoolers to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop bringing abortion into this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children.  Does the means used really matter?  It shouldn't.  If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left.  They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda.  When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously.  Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of abortion threads if you want to talk about abortion.  If you weren't so caught up in yourself, you would realize that I'm NOT anti-gun.  I am a PRO rights person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put two and two together for you.  The concern here is the death of children.  Why does the particular means matter when discussing it?  Yes, a child dying by gunshot is tragic.  Children dying by abortion is tragic.  One happens with far more frequency than the other.  The tragedy is multiplied.  You'd think that someone who is horrified by the death of children would want to do something about the death of children regardless of the cause of death.  But they don't.  Because the real concern isn't children.  The real concern is their hate and fear of an inanimate object.  It's always telling that the people who cry for "the children" killed by guns don't give two shits and a holler about the exponentially more killed by abortion.  The abortion question is a test to see what the real agenda is.  The real agenda is guns, not children.  The gun grabbers could care less how many children die because the vast majority of gun grabbers are pro-abortion supporters who are coldly indifferent to the death of children.  And that is how 2 and 2 make 4.
Click to expand...


When you bring abortion into the discussion, you push all those people away from you who are pro choice.  THAT is the point.


----------



## ChrisL

kwc57 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child. No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby. A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms. But you totally insane liberals, hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals. Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place. Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells. Dumbass. Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything. Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of kids are ready for adoption....Care to step up and show how far your "love" of unwanted children you're willing to adopt you hypocritical bastards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother when you can just kill them instead, eh Natalie? problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted several videos on another gun control thread about why you should not bring the abortion topic into the gun control debate!  You don't bring many people onto OUR side by using this argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to bring any gun grabber over to your side.  Bringing up abortion exposes their false agenda of concern for children.  It has nothing to do with children.
Click to expand...


An embryo is not a child.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Shame your mother decided not to destroy the embryo that was in her.  You would of been a lot better off, not having your sorry ass, FORCED to live in this lousy country.  Maybe you should go and kill her for her transgression against you.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Ah shit, you liberals are wrong once again.  You say you cant deny the "science of global warming" and now with science saying that life starts at conception, you have been killing unborn children just as much as killing born children in schools and theaters.  I know that in your miserable lives you hate all humanity especially those who find happiness with children.  You cant find that happiness so try to FORCE upon the rest of US your immoral ways.  





> Human life begins with a bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, according to a Telegraph article, which says scientists have video footage that proves, for the very first time, that at the exact moment of conception, an explosion of sparks erupts from the egg. The argument counters that of abortion advocates who claim that no one can really define the moment life begins.


----------



## paulitician

Wait till Hitlery gets in there. You ain't seen nothin yet. If you care about preserving your 2nd Amendment rights, you better pray Trump wins.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> An embryo is not a child.





ChrisL said:


> An embryo is not a child.




According to moronic right wingers, life begins with any lustful  thoughts.....But, once born, right wingers have no "morality" for that child's education, health care, homelessness....and actually often encourage that maturing child to go die in a war for profits. Imbeciles.


----------



## nat4900

paulitician said:


> Wait till Hitlery gets in there. You ain't seen nothin yet. If you care about preserving your 2nd Amendment rights, you better pray Trump wins.




If you had an ounce of common sense and comprehension, you too would conclude that Trump is to the LEFT of Clinton on many, many issues....such as universal health care, isolationism, and gun control laws.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

paulitician said:


> Wait till Hitlery gets in there. You ain't seen nothin yet. If you care about preserving your 2nd Amendment rights, you better pray Trump wins.


70% of the US citizens are fed up with the established (R) and (D).  The only thing the vagina candidate is running on, is the gender.  Democrats, independents and republicans are moving towards Trump because he wants to bring Jobs back to America.  Close the borders to stop the horde of illegals from crossing it.  And to protect American citizens from those who come here to do US harm.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to moronic right wingers, life begins with any lustful  thoughts.....But, once born, right wingers have no "morality" for that child's education, health care, homelessness....and actually often encourage that maturing child to go die in a war for profits. Imbeciles.
Click to expand...

Sociopath #10, say it enough and liberals hope everyone will believe them.  Problem with liberals is that "normal" people don't believe them.

Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill


> “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”


----------



## kwc57

ChrisL said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how you call an aborted fetus is not a child. No shit shirlock, that is a dead baby. A unborn child in the womb of a women is a living , thinking, loved baby awaiting the day when it can be put in the mother's and father's arms. But you totally insane liberals, hate all people, starting with babies, children, young adults, men and women, because you don't want to share this Earth with them, because those who don't think like you, wont allow you to destroy as we see with all the liberals. Shame more liberals didn't abort their children and then the world would be a better place. Look in the mirror Nitwit4900 and thank God that your mother didn't decide to end your life because you were just a jumble of cells. Dumbass. Or you can damn your mother for bringing your sorry ass into the world, which is why you hate everyone and everything. Now go back to your basement and be the miserable wretch that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of kids are ready for adoption....Care to step up and show how far your "love" of unwanted children you're willing to adopt you hypocritical bastards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother when you can just kill them instead, eh Natalie? problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted several videos on another gun control thread about why you should not bring the abortion topic into the gun control debate!  You don't bring many people onto OUR side by using this argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to bring any gun grabber over to your side.  Bringing up abortion exposes their false agenda of concern for children.  It has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a child.
Click to expand...


Where does a child come from?  You can't have one without the other.  You can't destroy one without destroying the other.  Why do people mourn the loss of a child in the womb?  Shouldn't they be indifferent to it if it is just a mass of tissue?  Why is it your child when you want it and a mass of tissue when you don't? You can rationalize that it isn't a child so you don't have to deal with the immorality of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.  Saying that abortion is legal doesn't make it moral.  Slavery was once "legal" too.


----------



## paulitician

nat4900 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait till Hitlery gets in there. You ain't seen nothin yet. If you care about preserving your 2nd Amendment rights, you better pray Trump wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an ounce of common sense and comprehension, you too would conclude that Trump is to the LEFT of Clinton on many, many issues....such as universal health care, isolationism, and gun control laws.
Click to expand...


Trump's made it clear where he stands on the 2nd Amendment. Hitlery has too. If you wanna preserve your rights, you'll go with Trump.


----------



## kwc57

ChrisL said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I left the Democratic party because they lost their fucking minds aborting far more children than guns ever kill. Democratic leadership is perfectly fine with killing a baby that is crowning as long as it hasn't left the birth canal.  Until then.......it's "just a mass of tissue".  I could take the liberals stand on guns killing kids if they would drop the hypocrisy and recognize that their sacred plank of abortion guised as "reproductive rights" and "women's health issues" is far worse when it comes to killing children.  To scream and shout about one and turn a blind eye to the other is dishonest and hypocritical.  Get your shit together, be honest and then there can be a real dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop bringing abortion into this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is the murder of children.  Does the means used really matter?  It shouldn't.  If you are concerned about a small number of children losing their life to guns, you should be horrified by the holocaust of abortion.......but you aren't, because this actually has nothing to do with children for the left.  They are merely a convenient prop to be used in the anti-gun agenda.  When you champion stopping the murder of all innocent children by all means of killing, I'll take your little anti-gun crusade seriously.  Until then, every time you cry gun and say "it's for the children", I'll cry abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of abortion threads if you want to talk about abortion.  If you weren't so caught up in yourself, you would realize that I'm NOT anti-gun.  I am a PRO rights person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put two and two together for you.  The concern here is the death of children.  Why does the particular means matter when discussing it?  Yes, a child dying by gunshot is tragic.  Children dying by abortion is tragic.  One happens with far more frequency than the other.  The tragedy is multiplied.  You'd think that someone who is horrified by the death of children would want to do something about the death of children regardless of the cause of death.  But they don't.  Because the real concern isn't children.  The real concern is their hate and fear of an inanimate object.  It's always telling that the people who cry for "the children" killed by guns don't give two shits and a holler about the exponentially more killed by abortion.  The abortion question is a test to see what the real agenda is.  The real agenda is guns, not children.  The gun grabbers could care less how many children die because the vast majority of gun grabbers are pro-abortion supporters who are coldly indifferent to the death of children.  And that is how 2 and 2 make 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you bring abortion into the discussion, you push all those people away from you who are pro choice.  THAT is the point.
Click to expand...


I note that you don't want to address the issue raised concerning the death of children being a smoke screen for the anti-gun crowd.  They don't care about the children.  Their anti-science, pro-death stance is proof of that.


----------



## kwc57

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to moronic right wingers, life begins with any lustful  thoughts.....But, once born, right wingers have no "morality" for that child's education, health care, homelessness....and actually often encourage that maturing child to go die in a war for profits. Imbeciles.
Click to expand...


Clearly your excessive masturbation has caused you to go insane. Stop it.


----------



## paulitician

andaronjim said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait till Hitlery gets in there. You ain't seen nothin yet. If you care about preserving your 2nd Amendment rights, you better pray Trump wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 70% of the US citizens are fed up with the established (R) and (D).  The only thing the vagina candidate is running on, is the gender.  Democrats, independents and republicans are moving towards Trump because he wants to bring Jobs back to America.  Close the borders to stop the horde of illegals from crossing it.  And to protect American citizens from those who come here to do US harm.
> 
> View attachment 73769
Click to expand...


The NWO Globalists hate him. He's not going along. He actually has the gall to put Americans first again. That's a big no-no for the NWO Globalists. He's going up against the most powerful wealthy NWO Elites in the world. Soros and his gang are gonna do everything possible to destroy him.

Just keep track of who'll be receiving the Banking Cartel cash.  Here's a hint, it won't be Trump. He's gonna be viciously smeared. But the man is a bulldog. He won't give up. I hope he wins.


----------



## hadit

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to moronic right wingers, life begins with any lustful  thoughts.....But, once born, right wingers have no "morality" for that child's education, health care, homelessness....and actually often encourage that maturing child to go die in a war for profits. Imbeciles.
Click to expand...

Thank God there aren't any of those around.  They sound scary.


----------



## nat4900

paulitician said:


> The NWO Globalists hate him. He's not going along. He actually has the gall to put Americans first again. That's a big no-no for the NWO Globalists. He's going up against the most powerful wealthy NWO Elites in the world. Soros and his gang are gonna do everything possible to destroy him.
> 
> Just keep track of who'll be receiving the Banking Cartel cash. Here's a hint, it won't be Trump. He's gonna be viciously smeared. But the man is a bulldog. He won't give up. I hope he wins.




Far form a Clinton (both of them) fan.......Trump's GOP nomination has just handed the oval office to Clinton for the next 8 years.......By then, minority voters will have turned TX and FL purple or blue and the chances of the regressive GOP ever gaining the WH again, will loom as science fiction.

(BTW, Trump's nomination has also given the senate a very, very good chance to turn to a democrat majority.....THANK YOU, Trump.)


----------



## nat4900

Trump will prove the near perfect Trojan Horse for the hapless GOP......What the DNC has been trying to accomplish for decades, Trump will manage to destroy in a little over one year......Gotta love the pompous ass.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NWO Globalists hate him. He's not going along. He actually has the gall to put Americans first again. That's a big no-no for the NWO Globalists. He's going up against the most powerful wealthy NWO Elites in the world. Soros and his gang are gonna do everything possible to destroy him.
> 
> Just keep track of who'll be receiving the Banking Cartel cash. Here's a hint, it won't be Trump. He's gonna be viciously smeared. But the man is a bulldog. He won't give up. I hope he wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far form a Clinton (both of them) fan.......Trump's GOP nomination has just handed the oval office to Clinton for the next 8 years.......By then, minority voters will have turned TX and FL purple or blue and the chances of the regressive GOP ever gaining the WH again, will loom as science fiction.
> 
> (BTW, Trump's nomination has also given the senate a very, very good chance to turn to a democrat majority.....THANK YOU, Trump.)
Click to expand...

The only thing that will be handed to the vagina candidate is an orange jumpsuit.  My fear is WHEN Trump wins the presidency, some liberal nutjob will try to assassinate him like they did with the womanizer John Kennedy and the Ranoldous Magnous, who took a malaise country of the US(thanks Carter) and turned into 20 years of prosperity where another womanizer(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) took credit for it.  The minority blacks will never achieve anything other than killing themselves because they don't understand that liberals have wanted them dead inside the womb or out.  Hispanics here legally adore Trump because he provides jobs, and they don't want to compete with those illegally here who get paid less.  Nitwit4900.5 is so stupid , that he probably doesn't know that the cartilage projection that sticks out of his face, is his nose.  That is how stupid a liberal is.

The reason why liberals are fanatical in their uprisings as of now, they for the past 7 1/2 years were close to achieving their goal of turning America, socialist.  With Trump coming in, republican majority in the house and senate, all that work is going to be turned around.  That is why the liberals are so full of hate.  ROTFLMAO....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> Trump will prove the near perfect Trojan Horse for the hapless GOP......What the DNC has been trying to accomplish for decades, Trump will manage to destroy in a little over one year......Gotta love the pompous ass.


First he says the vagina candidate will win, then he says trump wins.... The mind of a liberal, oh wait, what mind.


----------



## nat4900

andaronjim said:


> First he says the vagina candidate will win, then he says trump wins.... The mind of a liberal, oh wait, what mind.




The above idiot has comprehension issues......like many within his/her ilk........


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Political Correctness from the Obama Administration.
> There was no malfunction with the guns, The guns performed as advertised.
> Therefor there is no reason to sue the gun manufacturers.  It would be like the families of drunk driving victims being able to sue the car manufacturers,
> The families can sue the shooter but most of the time they don't have the deep pockets like the manufacturers do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....the Dems should hurry up and organize lawsuits against pencil manufacturers, car companies, and those who make utensils....
> 
> ....after all, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And don't forget this wonderful internet.  Thousands of people get scammed out of money every year because of the internet.  Young people have committed suicide because of things others have said on Facebook.  Hell, your identity can get stolen by simply sending your tax form to the IRS through the internet.  Murderers have set up sellers of merchandise only so they can kill them.  Hundreds have used this device to download pictures and movies of children having sex.
> 
> Maybe people should be able to sue Apple and Microsoft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly get your point, Ray.....
> ...but the fascists already have their foot on the throat of the free dissemination of information, the internet....
> 
> *"Net Neutrality: Strangling the Information Highway with Red Tape"*
> *Net Neutrality: Strangling the Information Highway with Red Tape – Capital Research Center
> 
> 
> The future is.....past.*
Click to expand...



"When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30."
An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.


----------



## PK1

PoliticalChic said:


> "When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30."
> An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.


What does your post have to do with this thread's topic ?
*Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.*


----------



## CowboyTed

PoliticalChic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Political Correctness from the Obama Administration.
> There was no malfunction with the guns, The guns performed as advertised.
> Therefor there is no reason to sue the gun manufacturers.  It would be like the families of drunk driving victims being able to sue the car manufacturers,
> The families can sue the shooter but most of the time they don't have the deep pockets like the manufacturers do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....the Dems should hurry up and organize lawsuits against pencil manufacturers, car companies, and those who make utensils....
> 
> ....after all, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And don't forget this wonderful internet.  Thousands of people get scammed out of money every year because of the internet.  Young people have committed suicide because of things others have said on Facebook.  Hell, your identity can get stolen by simply sending your tax form to the IRS through the internet.  Murderers have set up sellers of merchandise only so they can kill them.  Hundreds have used this device to download pictures and movies of children having sex.
> 
> Maybe people should be able to sue Apple and Microsoft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly get your point, Ray.....
> ...but the fascists already have their foot on the throat of the free dissemination of information, the internet....
> 
> *"Net Neutrality: Strangling the Information Highway with Red Tape"*
> *Net Neutrality: Strangling the Information Highway with Red Tape – Capital Research Center
> 
> 
> The future is.....past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30."
> An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.
Click to expand...


From your article:

*If* the U.S. abdicates internet stewardship, the United Nations *might* take control

_Let's change words and see if the next statement is also factually correct:_

*If* the U.S. elects Trump , the United Nations *might* take control

Lets go again:
*If* the U.S. likes Ice Cream , the United Nations *might* make everyone gay


Please stop with ridiculous articles...


----------



## CowboyTed

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30."
> An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.
> 
> 
> 
> What does your post have to do with this thread's topic ?
> *Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.*
Click to expand...


Sorry PK, I was having too much fun making an ass out of her to remember that...


----------



## owebo

Did the guns malfunction?


----------



## Snouter

The court proceedings were on local TV here in CT.  The case was absolutely ridiculous and should have been tossed out.  If I recall, the ridiculous Judge Barbara Bellis proclaimed a need for 3 months to contemplate a decision.  What the fuck is going on in US courts with all these retards on the bench.  Now we know why super predators are not incarcerated even after they send a message to society they cannot adapt.


----------



## CowboyTed

Snouter said:


> The court proceedings were on local TV here in CT.  The case was absolutely ridiculous and should have been tossed out.  If I recall, the ridiculous Judge Barbara Bellis proclaimed a need for 3 months to contemplate a decision.  What the fuck is going on in US courts with all these retards on the bench.  Now we know why super predators are not incarcerated even after they send a message to society they cannot adapt.



Lets just say that nothing you have said on this forum could count you as objective...


----------



## Papageorgio

CowboyTed said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court proceedings were on local TV here in CT.  The case was absolutely ridiculous and should have been tossed out.  If I recall, the ridiculous Judge Barbara Bellis proclaimed a need for 3 months to contemplate a decision.  What the fuck is going on in US courts with all these retards on the bench.  Now we know why super predators are not incarcerated even after they send a message to society they cannot adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say that nothing you have said on this forum could count you as objective...
Click to expand...


I don't know anyone on this board that is objective.


----------



## Dana7360

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......





There is no now about it.

Gun manufacturers have been able to be sued until 2007 when the republicans passed the law prohibiting it and the bush boy signed it into law.

So this lawsuit isn't new. It's just the first one that's been able to go forward despite the unconstitutional laws that the republicans created.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dana7360 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no now about it.
> 
> Gun manufacturers have been able to be sued until 2007 when the republicans passed the law prohibiting it and the bush boy signed it into law.
> 
> So this lawsuit isn't new. It's just the first one that's been able to go forward despite the unconstitutional laws that the republicans created.
Click to expand...


What law is unconstitutional? A part of the Constitution is it breaking?


----------



## ChrisL

owebo said:


> Did the guns malfunction?



No, they want to try and sue the manufacturers because some lunatic freaks out and kills a bunch of people.  MISUSE of the product.  If a Muslim terrorist decides to kill a bunch of people, should we be able to sue Muslims?  Lol.  It's almost the same thing!  It's so retarded.


----------



## Dana7360

Timmy said:


> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)





They're marketing to men who have a small penis and feel they have no or little control of their lives.

There are several of them on this message board.

The hilarious thing is that most intelligent women are laughing at them.

When women encounter men like that the first thing they know is that man has a very small penis and is over compensating for it.


----------



## ChrisL

Dana7360 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're marketing to men who have a small penis and feel they have no or little control of their lives.
> 
> There are several of them on this message board.
> 
> The hilarious thing is that most intelligent women are laughing at them.
> 
> When women encounter men like that the first thing they know is that man has a very small penis and is over compensating for it.
Click to expand...


Where is the STFU button?  Obviously you don't know any men who own guns.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dana7360 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're marketing to men who have a small penis and feel they have no or little control of their lives.
> 
> There are several of them on this message board.
> 
> The hilarious thing is that most intelligent women are laughing at them.
> 
> When women encounter men like that the first thing they know is that man has a very small penis and is over compensating for it.
Click to expand...

When a liberal talks about men with guns having a small penis, we gun owners KNOW who really have the small dicks.  That is why a Cuban Cigar had to be used on Monica.  Liberals have to have a government take care of them, they need that government to push the rest of US around, because those little dicks, are fucking cowards.  Why else do they have penis envy, when it comes to guns?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dana7360 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're marketing to men who have a small penis and feel they have no or little control of their lives.
> 
> There are several of them on this message board.
> 
> The hilarious thing is that most intelligent women are laughing at them.
> 
> When women encounter men like that the first thing they know is that man has a very small penis and is over compensating for it.
Click to expand...

Intelligent women like Hillary Clinton?


----------



## FA_Q2

Dana7360 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.
> 
> Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're marketing to men who have a small penis and feel they have no or little control of their lives.
> 
> There are several of them on this message board.
> 
> The hilarious thing is that most intelligent women are laughing at them.
> 
> When women encounter men like that the first thing they know is that man has a very small penis and is over compensating for it.
Click to expand...

It is this kind of asinine remark that show your entire premise to be based on bullshit.


If that is what you truly believe then you have nothing other than contempt to base your position on.  That is truly a sad state to exist in.


----------



## Rustic

Any type of lawsuit against a firearm manufacture is frivolous at best, most likely criminal...


----------



## Snouter

CowboyTed said:


> Lets just say that nothing you have said on this forum could count you as objective...



Name one post that was not supported by facts.



ChrisL said:


> No, they want to try and sue the manufacturers because some lunatic freaks out and kills a bunch of people.  MISUSE of the product.



An example is the recent thread here in which a driver of a Jeep was assaulted and then used the Jeep as a deadly weapon.  Chrysler or whatever parent company owns Jeep nowadays cannot be help responsible for that crime.



ChrisL said:


> If a Muslim terrorist decides to kill a bunch of people, should we be able to sue Muslims?  Lol.  It's almost the same thing!  It's so retarded.



I disagree in that at a minimum Muslims, since they do willing kill on behalf of their religion, should not be allowed to enter civilized countries.  They are all ticking time bombs.  The point being killing people and performing other evil acts are encouraged in their particular religion which encompasses their entire worldview which is a form of mental illness.


----------



## Timmy

Snouter said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say that nothing you have said on this forum could count you as objective...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one post that was not supported by facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they want to try and sue the manufacturers because some lunatic freaks out and kills a bunch of people.  MISUSE of the product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An example is the recent thread here in which a driver of a Jeep was assaulted and then used the Jeep as a deadly weapon.  Chrysler or whatever parent company owns Jeep nowadays cannot be help responsible for that crime.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Muslim terrorist decides to kill a bunch of people, should we be able to sue Muslims?  Lol.  It's almost the same thing!  It's so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree in that at a minimum Muslims, since they do willing kill on behalf of their religion, should not be allowed to enter civilized countries.  They are all ticking time bombs.  The point being killing people and performing other evil acts are encouraged in their particular religion which encompasses their entire worldview which is a form of mental illness.
Click to expand...


Jeeps aren't designed or marketed as killing machines.

Look, I don't think the lawsuit has a chance .  The issue is , should gun makers have SPECIAL laws shielding them from lawsuits .


----------



## FA_Q2

Timmy said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say that nothing you have said on this forum could count you as objective...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one post that was not supported by facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they want to try and sue the manufacturers because some lunatic freaks out and kills a bunch of people.  MISUSE of the product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An example is the recent thread here in which a driver of a Jeep was assaulted and then used the Jeep as a deadly weapon.  Chrysler or whatever parent company owns Jeep nowadays cannot be help responsible for that crime.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Muslim terrorist decides to kill a bunch of people, should we be able to sue Muslims?  Lol.  It's almost the same thing!  It's so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree in that at a minimum Muslims, since they do willing kill on behalf of their religion, should not be allowed to enter civilized countries.  They are all ticking time bombs.  The point being killing people and performing other evil acts are encouraged in their particular religion which encompasses their entire worldview which is a form of mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeeps aren't designed or marketed as killing machines.
> 
> Look, I don't think the lawsuit has a chance .  The issue is , should gun makers have SPECIAL laws shielding them from lawsuits .
Click to expand...

They should have protection from being sued for the illegal use of their product as vehicles should be as well.

Do you honestly believe that the manufacturers should be sued when someone illegally uses a product and it causes harm?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Jeeps aren't designed or marketed as killing machines.
> 
> Look, I don't think the lawsuit has a chance . The issue is , should gun makers have SPECIAL laws shielding them from lawsuits .



Do they really have special laws? 

Lawsuits awards are a very small part of a lawsuit.  The larger part is the cost associated with defending yourself from a lawsuit.  That's why many up front try to settle out of court just to avoid the expense. 

What we need in this country is a loser pays all law.  Sue anybody you like, but if you lose, you are responsible for all expenses of the person or people you tried to sue.


----------



## Rustic

Timmy said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say that nothing you have said on this forum could count you as objective...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one post that was not supported by facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they want to try and sue the manufacturers because some lunatic freaks out and kills a bunch of people.  MISUSE of the product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An example is the recent thread here in which a driver of a Jeep was assaulted and then used the Jeep as a deadly weapon.  Chrysler or whatever parent company owns Jeep nowadays cannot be help responsible for that crime.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Muslim terrorist decides to kill a bunch of people, should we be able to sue Muslims?  Lol.  It's almost the same thing!  It's so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree in that at a minimum Muslims, since they do willing kill on behalf of their religion, should not be allowed to enter civilized countries.  They are all ticking time bombs.  The point being killing people and performing other evil acts are encouraged in their particular religion which encompasses their entire worldview which is a form of mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeeps aren't designed or marketed as killing machines.
> 
> Look, I don't think the lawsuit has a chance .  The issue is , should gun makers have SPECIAL laws shielding them from lawsuits .
Click to expand...

Because people kill people not firearms dip shit LOL


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

andaronjim said:


> When a liberal talks about men with guns having a small penis, we gun owners KNOW who really have the small dicks. That is why a Cuban Cigar had to be used on Monica. Liberals have to have a government take care of them, they need that government to push the rest of US around, because those little dicks, are fucking cowards. Why else do they have penis envy, when it comes to guns?



I don't think you understand the liberal mentality.  They think they are smarter than everybody else, so they often try to use reverse psychology to get their way.  In their minds, it's supposed to work something like this: 

_You gun owners only need a gun because you have small penises. 

Oh no!  I don't want anybody to think I have a small penis.  I'm going to get rid of this gun so people don't look at me that way. 
_
Believe it or not, this is what goes on in the mind of a liberal.  Until we actually find a cure for it, they will continue to think this way.


----------



## Flash

nat4900 said:


> Trump will prove the near perfect Trojan Horse for the hapless GOP......What the DNC has been trying to accomplish for decades, Trump will manage to destroy in a little over one year......Gotta love the pompous ass.




Of course the alternative is for Crooked Hillary to continue with the destruction of Obama so we are pretty much screwed no matter what, aren't we?


----------



## nat4900

Flash said:


> Hillary to continue with the destruction of Obama




Well, the above is an "opinion that you pulled out of your rectum".....but hardly based on fact.
Yes, Hillary will pretty much give us 8 additional years of Obama, with the important exception that the Supreme Court will return to sanity.....and the Senate will be under democrats' majority for at least 2 to 4 years.

The Democrat is a party of inclusion of all racial and ethnic groups...the GOP is a party of an outdated and dying ideology.  Unless the GOP dramatically changes as they had planned to do before the Tea Baggers barged in, the GOP will split into 2 weaker parties.


----------



## Flash

nat4900 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary to continue with the destruction of Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the above is an "opinion that you pulled out of your rectum".....but hardly based on fact.
> Yes, Hillary will pretty much give us 8 additional years of Obama, with the important exception that the Supreme Court will return to sanity.....and the Senate will be under democrats' majority for at least 2 to 4 years.
> 
> The Democrat is a party of inclusion of all racial and ethnic groups...the GOP is a party of an outdated and dying ideology.  Unless the GOP dramatically changes as they had planned to do before the Tea Baggers barged in, the GOP will split into 2 weaker parties.
Click to expand...



It is not an opinion.  It is a fact Mr. Moon Bat.  If you didn't have your head up your Left Wing ass like all stupid Moon Bats you would know.

Since that shithead Obama has been President poverty has increased, debt has sky rocketed, economic growth has been dismal, million of asshole illegals were allowed to flood across the border, the Negroes have been rioting and looting, welfare roles have increased, the cost of health care has significantly increased and America's weak foreign policy is the laughing stock of the worlds as the Iranian Mullahs get rich and Castro is smug and secure.  

Obama even managed to lose the Iraq war that Crooked Hillary voted for.

This Obama piece of shit has really screwed up this country and Crooked Hillary has the potential to make it even worse.


----------



## nat4900

Flash said:


> Obama even managed to lose the Iraq war that Crooked Hillary voted for.
> 
> This Obama piece of shit has really screwed up this country and Crooked Hillary has the potential to make it even worse.




I'll mark you down as one of the LOSERS who will not vote for Hillary, since your vote won't matter anyway...Take care of your ulcers for the next 8 years....LOL.


----------



## Flash

nat4900 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama even managed to lose the Iraq war that Crooked Hillary voted for.
> 
> This Obama piece of shit has really screwed up this country and Crooked Hillary has the potential to make it even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll mark you down as one of the LOSERS who will not vote for Hillary, since your vote won't matter anyway...Take care of your ulcers for the next 8 years....LOL.
Click to expand...



I am not going to vote for either Crooked Hillary or The Donald because they are both big government Liberals so I am not going to lose between the two.  America loses with big government Liberals.

However, it is amusing to see a stupid Moon Bat, who is planning to vote for a corrupt, dishonest and incompetent bitch, to claim that they somehow know how this election is going to turn out.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

nat4900 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama even managed to lose the Iraq war that Crooked Hillary voted for.
> 
> This Obama piece of shit has really screwed up this country and Crooked Hillary has the potential to make it even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll mark you down as one of the LOSERS who will not vote for Hillary, since your vote won't matter anyway...Take care of your ulcers for the next 8 years....LOL.
Click to expand...

The Worst Yet! Hillary Clinton Suffers Serious Coughing Fit In Cleveland - Breitbart


> Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton suffered another coughing fit on the campaign trail, immediately after she took the stage during a rally in Cleveland.


Hillary had to put up with Bills' war on women since she married Bill.  She demands to be president.
Hillary had to stand down from being president because some upstart bi racial MAN took her chance at being president back in 2008.  She demands to be president.
Hillary spent 4 years as Secretary of State, having to FOLLOW orders from the bi racial MAN, protecting his ass to remain president by claiming a movie caused the attack on Benghazi, she lied, but 4 US citizens died under her watch.  She demands to be president.
Hillary Clinton is a mess, she had a concussion while on the campaign.  She has fallen at least 2 times, needing MEN to help her up. She demands to be president.
She while ranting and raving, goes into coughing fits, that make her look feeble.  We the People don't need a feeble FEMALE, who is a spoiled brat who cant get her way. Even if it kills her.


----------



## Wilbur Right

ChrisL said:


> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.





Hey Chris, do parents have the right to send their kids to school and not expect some crazed kid whose mom bought him an AR15 to come into the school and kill a bunch of kids.

Do parents have that right Chris? You don't have guns you say. You got kids? Which one is more important; your gun rights or your kids life?


----------



## Flash

andaronjim said:


> [
> 
> The Worst Yet! Hillary Clinton Suffers Serious Coughing Fit In Cleveland - Breitbart
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton suffered another coughing fit on the campaign trail, immediately after she took the stage during a rally in Cleveland.
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary had to put up with Bills' war on women since she married Bill.  She demands to be president.
> Hillary had to stand down from being president because some upstart bi racial MAN took her chance at being president back in 2008.  She demands to be president.
> Hillary spent 4 years as Secretary of State, having to FOLLOW orders from the bi racial MAN, protecting his ass to remain president by claiming a movie caused the attack on Benghazi, she lied, but 4 US citizens died under her watch.  She demands to be president.
> Hillary Clinton is a mess, she had a concussion while on the campaign.  She has fallen at least 2 times, needing MEN to help her up. She demands to be president.
> She while ranting and raving, goes into coughing fits, that make her look feeble.  We the People don't need a feeble FEMALE, who is a spoiled brat who cant get her way. Even if it kills her.
> 
> ]
Click to expand...


Good analysis.

Not only does the bitch think she is entitled but she will stop at nothing to get rich and get elected including destroying government records to hide the evidence of her corruption.

She is probably the worst candidate ever to run for President.  No doubt the most corrupt and dishonest.  However, I think this asshole Obama will give her a run for the money in being the most incompetent and least qualified.

These Moon Bats are idiots to be thinking she would be a good President.


----------



## Wilbur Right

Flash said:


> She is probably the worst candidate ever to run for President. No doubt the most corrupt and dishonest.





Second only to Donald Trump. Which is why I will hold my nose and vote Hillary.


----------



## Wilbur Right

Flash said:


> These Moon Bats are idiots to be thinking she would be a good President.




No, she will be a stymied president. Unable to accomplish much of anything. Which is greatly preferred to a Trump getting congress to support every stupid fucking idea he comes up with.


----------



## Flash

Wilbur Right said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is probably the worst candidate ever to run for President. No doubt the most corrupt and dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second only to Donald Trump. Which is why I will hold my nose and vote Hillary.
Click to expand...



The Donald has his flaws but he is a saint compared to The Bitch of Benghazi.

If your voting strategy is voting for "the lesser of two evils" then it is a no brainer between Crooked Hillary and Trump.  Trump wins that contest hands down.


----------



## Flash

Wilbur Right said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> These Moon Bats are idiots to be thinking she would be a good President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she will be a stymied president. Unable to accomplish much of anything. Which is greatly preferred to a Trump getting congress to support every stupid fucking idea he comes up with.
Click to expand...



That is amusing.

Crooked Hillary has a significant record of dishonesty, corruption and incompetency.  Plus she is a mean hateful bitch that is not all that bright.  In addition to that she is spouting this filthy ass Left Wing shit that is nothing more than a continuation of the destruction of our country that we see with this Obama jackass.  

At least Trump is saying all the right things with his ideas of non interventionism, sealing the border and stimulating the economy after Obama's dismal economics.

Trump has been a successful person while the real record of Crooked Hillary is one of failure in everything she did.  She is a bad person.

Neither one is what America needs right now but between the two it is a no brainer to tell Crooked Hillary to shove it up her enormous fat Libtard ass.


----------



## AntonToo

ChrisL said:


> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.



*YES THEY CAN*, that's the whole point. Gun lobby has carved itself a SPECIAL exception.

Suing is not the same thing as winning any awards and I have no problem with victims being able to make their case in the court of law.


----------



## ChrisL

antontoo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YES THEY CAN*, that's the whole point. Gun lobby has carved itself a SPECIAL exception.
> 
> Suing is not the same thing as winning any awards and I have no problem with victims being able to make their case in the court of law.
Click to expand...


No they can't.  Lol.  When has a knife manufacturer been sued for someone killing someone with a knife?  Links?  

You don't SUE a manufacturer for misusing the product!  Where does it end?  You want to fill up our courts with frivolous lawsuits or something, which costs taxpayer monies?  Retarded.


----------



## ChrisL

Wilbur Right said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Chris, do parents have the right to send their kids to school and not expect some crazed kid whose mom bought him an AR15 to come into the school and kill a bunch of kids.
> 
> Do parents have that right Chris? You don't have guns you say. You got kids? Which one is more important; your gun rights or your kids life?
Click to expand...


Extreme hyperbole.  School shootings are very RARE, and I stand up for my rights as an American citizen.  I would blame the perpetrator, and NOT the tool they chose.


----------



## hadit

Wilbur Right said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Chris, do parents have the right to send their kids to school and not expect some crazed kid whose mom bought him an AR15 to come into the school and kill a bunch of kids.
> 
> Do parents have that right Chris? You don't have guns you say. You got kids? Which one is more important; your gun rights or your kids life?
Click to expand...

Kids' lives were safe at school when kids could bring a rifle or shotgun with them and use it to hunt on the way home.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Timmy said:


> [
> Look, I don't think the lawsuit has a chance .  The issue is , should gun makers have SPECIAL laws shielding them from lawsuits .


Yes.
Because people. pushed by the anti-gun left, will continue to file suits; it only takes liberal judge to open the floodgate.


----------



## Wilbur Right

ChrisL said:


> Extreme hyperbole. School shootings are very RARE,




WTF? You think Sandyhook was a fraud? You live in Conn? If not, then what they are looking to do has nothing to do with you.



ChrisL said:


> I would blame the perpetrator, and NOT the tool they chose.




That's great Chris, however in this case the perpetrator is already dead. What you gonna do to him?

People are trying to stop NEXT perpetrator. But you want to wait till the next shooting occurs and then do WHAT?


----------



## ChrisL

Wilbur Right said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extreme hyperbole. School shootings are very RARE,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? You think Sandyhook was a fraud? You live in Conn? If not, then what they are looking to do has nothing to do with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would blame the perpetrator, and NOT the tool they chose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's great Chris, however in this case the perpetrator is already dead. What you gonna do to him?
> 
> People are trying to stop NEXT perpetrator. But you want to wait till the next shooting occurs and then do WHAT?
Click to expand...


A fraud?  What in the hell are you babbling about?  I said school shootings are rare, and they are.  That is a fact.  

If someone has it in their mind that they want to MURDER a bunch of people, then they are going to do it.  THAT is a fact.  Your silly gun control laws won't stop them.  Be realistic.


----------



## Wilbur Right

hadit said:


> Kids' lives were safe at school when kids could bring a rifle or shotgun with them and use it to hunt on the way home.




What are you; a hundred and ten? Had to hunt rabbits on the way home for supper.

I started going to school in 1959. No one brought guns to school. For any reason.


----------



## ChrisL

Guns are not going to disappear because YOU don't like them.  They are here and you can't put Pandora back in the box.  If they were completely banned, people would smuggle them in and flood the underground market with them.  Then your gun control measures would be even MORE useless.  Then, there would be no way to track them, there would be no background checks, and you would make things even worse!


----------



## Wilbur Right

ChrisL said:


> fraud? What in the hell are you babbling about? I said school shootings are rare, and they are. That is a fact.




The people in Conn are not talking about a "rare" event. Matter of fact, they don't give a fuck school shootings are rare. They experienced one already and one is enough for them.

You don't like that they feel that way, I would imagine some of them would tell you tough shit. I would.


----------



## Wilbur Right

ChrisL said:


> Guns are not going to disappear because YOU don't like them





LMAO. I've got a dozen guns. You've got none. Fuck you telling me about guns.


----------



## hadit

Wilbur Right said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids' lives were safe at school when kids could bring a rifle or shotgun with them and use it to hunt on the way home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you; a hundred and ten? Had to hunt rabbits on the way home for supper.
> 
> I started going to school in 1959. No one brought guns to school. For any reason.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point, which is that "Your kids' lives or your gun rights" is a false choice.


----------



## ChrisL

Wilbur Right said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> fraud? What in the hell are you babbling about? I said school shootings are rare, and they are. That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people in Conn are not talking about a "rare" event. Matter of fact, they don't give a fuck school shootings are rare. They experienced one already and one is enough for them.
> 
> You don't like that they feel that way, I would imagine some of them would tell you tough shit. I would.
Click to expand...


Regardless of your emotional outburst, school shootings are less than 0.1% of crimes committed.  VERY rare.  

Again, if someone is willing to face life in prison, the death penalty or kill themselves and committing such a heinous crime to begin with, then NO laws are going to stop them.  Duh.


----------



## AntonToo

ChrisL said:


> No they can't.  Lol.  When has



Because you say so? Or is it because you throw a Lol in there?

Normally anyone can sue any company for any product, but there are SPECIFIC immunity exceptions like the one gun lobby has carved out for that industry.


----------



## jon_berzerk

ChrisL said:


> Wilbur Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> fraud? What in the hell are you babbling about? I said school shootings are rare, and they are. That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people in Conn are not talking about a "rare" event. Matter of fact, they don't give a fuck school shootings are rare. They experienced one already and one is enough for them.
> 
> You don't like that they feel that way, I would imagine some of them would tell you tough shit. I would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of your emotional outburst, school shootings are less than 0.1% of crimes committed.  VERY rare.
> 
> Again, if someone is willing to face life in prison, the death penalty or kill themselves and committing such a heinous crime to begin with, then NO laws are going to stop them.  Duh.
Click to expand...



well the only laws that may stop them 

would be laws allowing the carry of personal firearms 

in such places


----------



## ChrisL

antontoo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't.  Lol.  When has
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so? Or is it because you throw a Lol in there?
> 
> Normally anyone can sue any company for any product, but there are SPECIFIC immunity exceptions like the one gun lobby has carved out for that industry.
Click to expand...


No they cannot.  They can sue if the product is DEFECTIVE.  You can't sue the manufacturer if you intentionally misuse the product.


----------



## M14 Shooter

antontoo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't.  Lol.  When has
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so? Or is it because you throw a Lol in there?
> Normally anyone can sue any company for any product...
Click to expand...

When was Ford last sued because someone stole a car and killed people with it?


----------



## ChrisL

jon_berzerk said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilbur Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> fraud? What in the hell are you babbling about? I said school shootings are rare, and they are. That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people in Conn are not talking about a "rare" event. Matter of fact, they don't give a fuck school shootings are rare. They experienced one already and one is enough for them.
> 
> You don't like that they feel that way, I would imagine some of them would tell you tough shit. I would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of your emotional outburst, school shootings are less than 0.1% of crimes committed.  VERY rare.
> 
> Again, if someone is willing to face life in prison, the death penalty or kill themselves and committing such a heinous crime to begin with, then NO laws are going to stop them.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well the only laws that may stop them
> 
> would be laws allowing the carry of personal firearms
> 
> in such places
Click to expand...


That's right.  Fight fire with fire!


----------



## 2aguy

M14 Shooter said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't.  Lol.  When has
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so? Or is it because you throw a Lol in there?
> Normally anyone can sue any company for any product...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Ford last sued because someone stole a car and killed people with it?
Click to expand...



There you go.....throwing in truth and reality........


----------



## AntonToo

ChrisL said:


> No they cannot.  They can sue if the product is DEFECTIVE.  You can't sue the manufacturer if you intentionally misuse the product.



So why are there SPECIAL legal immunity on the books for gun manufacturers? 

The answer is that you actually don't know what the fuck you are talking about, that's why.

*
Yes you actually CAN sue knife manufacturer for crimes committed with their knifes, just as you can sue ANY product...which doesn't have a powerful lobby that can get legal immunity.

*


----------



## easyt65

If gun victims are allowed to sue gun manufacturers, every American and their families who are victims of crimes perpetrated by illegals should be able to sue Barry!


----------



## AntonToo

easyt65 said:


> If gun victims are allowed to sue gun manufacturers, every American and their families who are victims of crimes perpetrated by illegals should be able to sue Barry!



You are just all too happy to flaunt your stupid aren't you?


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> No they can't. Lol. When has a knife manufacturer been sued for someone killing someone with a knife? Links?
> 
> You don't SUE a manufacturer for misusing the product! Where does it end? You want to fill up our courts with frivolous lawsuits or something, which costs taxpayer monies? Retarded.



With ONE major exception to the above (I really didn't want for this thread to resurface...but, alas)

A manufacturer of knives can easily and truthfully state that the knife has several other functions rather than stabbing someone; while a gun manufacturer (as cigarette manufacturers have long found out) CANNOT say anything about his product except that its function is to either target shoot or KILL another human being.


----------



## nat4900

ONE MORE FUCKING TIME, right wingers......

No one wants to ban ALL guns(that is your moronic way of avoiding your own screwed up responsibility)....What many of us want is the banning of MILITARY-STYLE weaponry whose ONLY purpose is to kill ....and to kill as many individuals in the shortest amount of time.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't. Lol. When has a knife manufacturer been sued for someone killing someone with a knife? Links?
> 
> You don't SUE a manufacturer for misusing the product! Where does it end? You want to fill up our courts with frivolous lawsuits or something, which costs taxpayer monies? Retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With ONE major exception to the above (I really didn't want for this thread to resurface...but, alas)
> 
> A manufacturer of knives can easily and truthfully state that the knife has several other functions rather than stabbing someone; while a gun manufacturer (as cigarette manufacturers have long found out) CANNOT say anything about his product except that its function is to either target shoot or KILL another human being.
Click to expand...



No...wrong again......a gun can be used to save lives, stop crime and keep the peace.......try again.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> ONE MORE FUCKING TIME, right wingers......
> 
> No one wants to ban ALL guns(that is your moronic way of avoiding your own screwed up responsibility)....What many of us want is the banning of MILITARY-STYLE weaponry whose ONLY purpose is to kill ....and to kill as many individuals in the shortest amount of time.




revolvers, lever action rifles, and flintlock rifles were all military guns before they were used by civilians......so you are just wrong....

Rifles with detachable magazines are less deadly in this country than knives are....

Rifles with detachable magazines were used in mass public shootings to kill 157 people.......  in 34 years....with over 8 million of these rifles in private hands, 5 million of them AR-15s......

(statistic taken from Mother Jones and their list of mass public shootings going back to 1982-2016)

So they aren't deadly compared to knives which are used to murder 1,500 people every single year......Statistic from  the FBI table 8 on homicide....

You are just wrong on evrerything you say.....and the 2nd Amendment as confirmed in Miller and Heller protects weapons in common use.....and that defines the AR-15, the most popular rifle in this country for civilians...it is also used by police......5 million of the in private hands.........


----------



## nat4900

2aguy said:


> No...wrong again......a gun can be used to save lives, stop crime and keep the peace.......try again.




Not worth the time to "try again" with half-brained morons......

But a baseball bat can also "save lives" and"stop crimes"............

I don't know of ANY household that does not have a knife.
I do, however,know of thousands of households that do NOT have a military-style weapon at the ready.


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...wrong again......a gun can be used to save lives, stop crime and keep the peace.......try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not worth the time to "try again" with half-brained morons......
> 
> But a baseball bat can also "save lives" and"stop crimes"............
> 
> I don't know of ANY household that does not have a knife.
> I do, however,know of thousands of households that do NOT have a military-style weapon at the ready.
Click to expand...



So....there are 8 million rifles with detachable magazines in private hands in the U.S.....total deaths with these rifles, vs. total deaths with knives......

So....my source......Mother Jones....has a record of mass shootings from 1982....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Total deaths from "Assault" rifles since 1982......157.....over 34 years.....

And I will show you how many were murdered with knives, clubs and bare hands....

From the FBI homicide table 8, weapons used to commit murder...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2014....

Knives..... 1,567 in 2014 vs  157 for Assault rifles in 34 years including Sunday's....

Hands and feet....660 in 2014 vs. 157 for assault rifles in 34 years......

clubs.... 435 in 2014 vs. 157 for assault rifles for the last 34 years....


So in a country of over 320 million people with 8 million of these rifles in private hands.....there are essentially 8 million rifles that are not used to murder anyone.....at all......

And based on that, you want to ban rifles that are used less than hands and feet each year to murder people....you want to ban them from the law abiding people who do not use them for crime, or murder....who use them for self defense, sport, hunting, and collecting....

That is where you rest your case...right.....  your irrational fear of an object should be used to make policy for the owners of 8 million of these rifles....

And you think you are rational and intelligent?


----------



## 2aguy

nat4900 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...wrong again......a gun can be used to save lives, stop crime and keep the peace.......try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not worth the time to "try again" with half-brained morons......
> 
> But a baseball bat can also "save lives" and"stop crimes"............
> 
> I don't know of ANY household that does not have a knife.
> I do, however,know of thousands of households that do NOT have a military-style weapon at the ready.
Click to expand...



there are millions of them.....8 million in private hands.....and almost none of them are used for crime........yet you want them banned because you are paranoid and fearful......


----------



## Rustic

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't. Lol. When has a knife manufacturer been sued for someone killing someone with a knife? Links?
> 
> You don't SUE a manufacturer for misusing the product! Where does it end? You want to fill up our courts with frivolous lawsuits or something, which costs taxpayer monies? Retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With ONE major exception to the above (I really didn't want for this thread to resurface...but, alas)
> 
> A manufacturer of knives can easily and truthfully state that the knife has several other functions rather than stabbing someone; while a gun manufacturer (as cigarette manufacturers have long found out) CANNOT say anything about his product except that its function is to either target shoot or KILL another human being.
Click to expand...

Stupid is and stupid does... any lawsuit against firearm manufacturers is a stupidly weak action and frivolous at best and most likely criminal. People kill not firearms...
The people that sue deserve the shit that rained down on them... cowardly frivolous fucks.


----------



## M14 Shooter

antontoo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they cannot.  They can sue if the product is DEFECTIVE.  You can't sue the manufacturer if you intentionally misuse the product.
> 
> 
> 
> So why are there SPECIAL legal immunity on the books for gun manufacturers?
> The answer is that you actually don't know what the fuck you are talking about, that's why.
> *Yes you actually CAN sue knife manufacturer for crimes committed with their knifes, just as you can sue ANY product...which doesn't have a powerful lobby that can get legal immunity.*
Click to expand...

You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
Note one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> [
> ....while a gun manufacturer CANNOT say anything about his product except that its function is to either target shoot or KILL another human being


This will remain a lie regardless of how many times you post it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nat4900 said:


> What many of us want is the banning of MILITARY-STYLE weaponry whose ONLY purpose is to kill ....and to kill as many individuals in the shortest amount of time.


This, too, is a lie, on numerous levels.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a liberal talks about men with guns having a small penis, we gun owners KNOW who really have the small dicks. That is why a Cuban Cigar had to be used on Monica. Liberals have to have a government take care of them, they need that government to push the rest of US around, because those little dicks, are fucking cowards. Why else do they have penis envy, when it comes to guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand the liberal mentality.  They think they are smarter than everybody else, so they often try to use reverse psychology to get their way.  In their minds, it's supposed to work something like this:
> 
> _You gun owners only need a gun because you have small penises.
> 
> Oh no!  I don't want anybody to think I have a small penis.  I'm going to get rid of this gun so people don't look at me that way.
> _
> Believe it or not, this is what goes on in the mind of a liberal.  Until we actually find a cure for it, they will continue to think this way.
Click to expand...


They can't conceive of people who just don't give a rat's furry behind what other people think, because they're all stuck in junior high and paralyzed by peer pressure.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Wilbur Right said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Chris, do parents have the right to send their kids to school and not expect some crazed kid whose mom bought him an AR15 to come into the school and kill a bunch of kids.
> 
> Do parents have that right Chris? You don't have guns you say. You got kids? Which one is more important; your gun rights or your kids life?
Click to expand...


Do posters to this board have a right not to be interrogated with half-assed, ridiculous straw man hypotheticals by a Torquemada wannabe?  Could we possibly get that right?

Is it at all possible you could argue the actual facts without making hysterical crap up out of thin air?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Wilbur Right said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids' lives were safe at school when kids could bring a rifle or shotgun with them and use it to hunt on the way home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you; a hundred and ten? Had to hunt rabbits on the way home for supper.
> 
> I started going to school in 1959. No one brought guns to school. For any reason.
Click to expand...


Yes, and the entire country is JUST like your little corner of it.  No one EVER has experiences different from yours, because you are representative of all Americans everywhere.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChrisL said:


> Guns are not going to disappear because YOU don't like them.  They are here and you can't put Pandora back in the box.  If they were completely banned, people would smuggle them in and flood the underground market with them.  Then your gun control measures would be even MORE useless.  Then, there would be no way to track them, there would be no background checks, and you would make things even worse!



I have mentioned this before.  The prison my husband used to work for had a display in their front lobby of all the contraband - including homemade firearms - that had been seized in cell searches of their facility.  If prison inmates - who aren't the brightest cross-section of the population by any means - can figure out how to make working guns out of what they can lay hands on _while incarcerated_, this is NOT a technology liberals can eradicate, no matter HOW many laws and bans they pass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Wilbur Right said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> fraud? What in the hell are you babbling about? I said school shootings are rare, and they are. That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people in Conn are not talking about a "rare" event. Matter of fact, they don't give a fuck school shootings are rare. They experienced one already and one is enough for them.
> 
> You don't like that they feel that way, I would imagine some of them would tell you tough shit. I would.
Click to expand...


Ehrmagerd, the FEELZ!  The liberal doctrine of The Infallibility of Victimhood strikes again!


----------



## Tom Horn

I always laugh when some pinhead reporter refers to an AR-15 as a "military-style rifle".


----------



## AntonToo

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
> Note one.



I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts. There is only one way to prevent suing - a special law that grants immunity. Gun industry is nearly unique in that it has such immunity.


----------



## M14 Shooter

antontoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
> Note one.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts.
Click to expand...

I accept your concession of he point.


----------



## AntonToo

M14 Shooter said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
> Note one.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your concession of he point.
Click to expand...

 
As I accept yours as to my actual point.


----------



## FA_Q2

Tom Horn said:


> I always laugh when some pinhead reporter refers to an AR-15 as a "military-style rifle".


I can no longer find the amazing level of ignorance in this country concerning guns amusing.  The media feeds into this constantly and seems to have no concern for truth whatsoever.


----------



## M14 Shooter

antontoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
> Note one.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your concession of he point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I accept yours as to my actual point.
Click to expand...

You cannot support your point, a fact you are fully aware of.
Manufacturers have never been liable when their product was stolen from its legal owner ans used to commit crime.
Not once has this happened.


----------



## FA_Q2

antontoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
> Note one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts. There is only one way to prevent suing - a special law that grants immunity. Gun industry is nearly unique in that it has such immunity.
Click to expand...

Your statement is meaningless if you cannot produce a single example of such happening.  Without that the law is nothing more than a protection from a flood of frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## TooTall

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......



I wonder when I can get a Judge to approve my lawsuit against General Motors.  My brother was killed in an accident with a Chevrolet Corvette that can go 120 miles an hour when the speed limit was 65.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

antontoo said:


> I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts. There is only one way to prevent suing - a special law that grants immunity. Gun industry is nearly unique in that it has such immunity.



No, several other types of businesses have the same protection.  When Hil-Liar said that only gun manufacturers have that kind of protection, she lied once again.  Even Politifact rated her claim false.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Rustic said:


> Stupid is and stupid does... any lawsuit against firearm manufacturers is a stupidly weak action and frivolous at best and most likely criminal. People kill not firearms...
> The people that sue deserve the shit that rained down on them... cowardly frivolous fucks.



What this country needs is a Loser Pays All law.  Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the suit, then you have to pay all the expenses of the person or business you tried to sue.  

That would stop most cases like this.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> ONE MORE FUCKING TIME, right wingers......
> 
> No one wants to ban ALL guns(that is your moronic way of avoiding your own screwed up responsibility)....What many of us want is the banning of MILITARY-STYLE weaponry whose ONLY purpose is to kill ....and to kill as many individuals in the shortest amount of time.



And that would accomplish what exactly?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I cut my finger, I'm suing Henckels.


----------



## TooTall

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid is and stupid does... any lawsuit against firearm manufacturers is a stupidly weak action and frivolous at best and most likely criminal. People kill not firearms...
> The people that sue deserve the shit that rained down on them... cowardly frivolous fucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this country needs is a Loser Pays All law.  Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the suit, then you have to pay all the expenses of the person or business you tried to sue.
> 
> That would stop most cases like this.
Click to expand...


I agree, but it would put 10,000 lawyers out of business and most of the people in Congress that pass the laws are lawyers.


----------



## whitehall

Why can't the families of hit and run victims sue Budweiser or Ford?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TooTall said:


> I agree, but it would put 10,000 lawyers out of business and most of the people in Congress that pass the laws are lawyers.



Winner.  Absolutely.  That's why none of them will ever do it.


----------



## skookerasbil

Yep.....that was some sIcK ass shotgun in the glove compartment of Lanza's Civic!!


----------



## Ambivalent1

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.
> 
> The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.
> 
> The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.
> 
> The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.
Click to expand...


*"So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction."* 

I invite you to try.
Neither the Military nor the Police will help you with this.


----------



## eagle1462010

Ambivalent1 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.
> 
> The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.
> 
> The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.
> 
> The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction."*
> 
> I invite you to try.
> Neither the Military nor the Police will help you with this.
Click to expand...

ahh the line in my sig and the day I put that asshole on ignore.


----------



## miketx

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.
> 
> The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.
> 
> The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.
> 
> The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.
Click to expand...

Spews the same lies over and over. Come get them sgt frag.


----------



## initforme

This is another non issue.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

JoeB131 said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?
> 
> What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.
> 
> Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.
> 
> We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.
> 
> I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter.  It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.
> 
> The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.
> 
> The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.
> 
> The second one is even dumber.  The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.
Click to expand...


I have to step in and say something.  

There is NO way to make the statements you do as fact.  It is impossible to determine how many physical assaults, murders, etc. are prevented because would be assailants are deterred by a citizen with a firearm.

Secondly, most people DO NOT own a firearm with the intention of fighting the government.  If that were true, somebody would have stood up when Trump outlawed bump stocks - that move violated the Constitution three different ways.

In that context that you allude to, people own firearms to prevent tyranny in government.  As  United States Supreme Court Justice Story stated:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."


----------



## iceberg

antontoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
> Note one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts. There is only one way to prevent suing - a special law that grants immunity. Gun industry is nearly unique in that it has such immunity.
Click to expand...

fine. remove the immunity.

you lose the case, you pay *all* court costs.


----------



## Rigby5

The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
It was insane to disarm teachers.

The schools are legally liable.
As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
> When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
> It was insane to disarm teachers.
> 
> The schools are legally liable.
> As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
> Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.



If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security.  Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?

The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places.  Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

FFS conservatives are stupid.


----------



## Andylusion

Proud to fight against lawsuit stupidity.


----------



## Andylusion

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> FFS conservatives are stupid.



All true, and yet still not nearly as dumb as left-wingers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> FFS conservatives are stupid.



What is an FFS conservative?


----------



## Rigby5

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
> When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
> It was insane to disarm teachers.
> 
> The schools are legally liable.
> As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
> Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security.  Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?
> 
> The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places.  Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?
Click to expand...



Yes, clearly gun control only infringes upon the ability of self defense, because it can never reduce weapons in the hands of those intent on violating law with far greater punishments, like murder.


----------



## Rigby5

Porter Rockwell said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFS conservatives are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is an FFS conservative?
Click to expand...


Not sure, but found this:

{...
dubbed FFS(which is an acronym for Friends For Sensibility but also a reference to the popular acronym used to express frustration),
...}


----------



## g5000

Rigby5 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
> When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
> It was insane to disarm teachers.
> 
> The schools are legally liable.
> As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
> Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security.  Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?
> 
> The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places.  Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly gun control only infringes upon the ability of self defense, because it can never reduce weapons in the hands of those intent on violating law with far greater punishments, like murder.
Click to expand...

In the advanced nations like ours which have strict gun control, the homicide rate is a tiny fraction of what it is here.


----------



## g5000

The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.

Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.

There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.

There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.

Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.


----------



## Rigby5

g5000 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
> When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
> It was insane to disarm teachers.
> 
> The schools are legally liable.
> As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
> Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security.  Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?
> 
> The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places.  Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly gun control only infringes upon the ability of self defense, because it can never reduce weapons in the hands of those intent on violating law with far greater punishments, like murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the advanced nations like ours which have strict gun control, the homicide rate is a tiny fraction of what it is here.
Click to expand...



Countries who do not have massive systemic causes of crime like the US does, think they do not need firearms, so mistakenly try to eliminate them.  But that does not at all show any causal correlation, and in fact history shows ALL countries decay, become corrupt, and will all need weapons in the hands of the general population eventually.  It is very short sighted to believe suddenly history will totally change, and governments will miraculously stop being corrupt or unstable.

It should be obvious to anyone that a democratic republic is absolutely and completely dependent upon an armed population.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

g5000 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
> When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
> It was insane to disarm teachers.
> 
> The schools are legally liable.
> As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
> Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security.  Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?
> 
> The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places.  Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly gun control only infringes upon the ability of self defense, because it can never reduce weapons in the hands of those intent on violating law with far greater punishments, like murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the advanced nations like ours which have strict gun control, the homicide rate is a tiny fraction of what it is here.
Click to expand...


And what nation might that be?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
> When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
> It was insane to disarm teachers.
> 
> The schools are legally liable.
> As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
> Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security.  Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?
> 
> The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places.  Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly gun control only infringes upon the ability of self defense, because it can never reduce weapons in the hands of those intent on violating law with far greater punishments, like murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the advanced nations like ours which have strict gun control, the homicide rate is a tiny fraction of what it is here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Countries who do not have massive systemic causes of crime like the US does, think they do not need firearms, so mistakenly try to eliminate them.  But that does not at all show any causal correlation, and in fact history shows ALL countries decay, become corrupt, and will all need weapons in the hands of the general population eventually.  It is very short sighted to believe suddenly history will totally change, and governments will miraculously stop being corrupt or unstable.
> 
> It should be obvious to anyone that a democratic republic is absolutely and completely dependent upon an armed population.
Click to expand...


We would be a better nation had we not made it a democratic republic, but kept it as the Republican Form of Government guaranteed in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.  But, point well taken.

Gun control nations are always pointing to their figures on crimes by firearms, but conveniently avoid apples to apples comparisons like how their countries stack up with homicide in general, rape, robbery, burglary, etc. and how "free" those people actually are.


----------



## Rigby5

g5000 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.





g5000 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.



And most people are also idiots who believed the obvious lies about Iraq having WMD.
Clearly guns are not at all a problem, but we have a violence problem because our society is unfair, violent, economically nonviable, anti-social, repressive, fascist, etc.

The gun market is not at all flooded, and the number of armed homes has been steadily decreasing over time.
Anyone who can vote should be allowed to have a gun, and if you want gun control, start with the most violent people, the police and the military.

Obviously this country is so unfair and corrupt, that about 10 times the number being killed should be, starting with the politicians, and then the lawyers.


----------



## Rustic

g5000 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.


Lol
Horse shit...


----------



## g5000

Rustic said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Horse shit...
Click to expand...

Drug firms shipped 20.8M pain pills to WV town with 2,900 people

Drug firm poured 3M opioids into WV town in just 10 months, report says

10K opioids a day sent to 1 WV town


----------



## Porter Rockwell

g5000 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.



Parents, the government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma created the drug culture.  Sadly, many mothers do not want their children off drugs.  

Today, with opioids, we lost 70,000 people a year due to opioid overdoses.  We lose about two and half times as many people in drug overdoses than we do to firearms (and I'm including ALL firearm deaths from accidental to suicide and from murder to police and military actions.

Adding insult to injury, you could *significantly* eliminate mass shootings just by making SSRIs available as a* LAST* treatment option and keeping those on SSRIs in protective custody.  EVERYBODY that commits mass shootings tend to be political jihadists and / or young white males on SSRIs.  

As for your war on firearms:  If you keep those you KNOW cannot be trusted in jail, prison, or mental health facilities, you reduce the numbers of firearm related deaths.  Unfortunately for you, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, God given, absolute, and irrevocable Right.  In my lifetime and yours there will ALWAYS be firearms.  So, while I would never join your fight against our Rights, I would work with anyone who wants to change the drug culture in America.  As fate would have it, I do have a plan...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

g5000 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.


No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths

OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Public service announcement Connecticut Judge ruled gun manufactures cannot be sued.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
Click to expand...


Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"

Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.  

Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.

Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.  

All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
Click to expand...



Here you go......

2017,   10,982 gun murders

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Deaths in mass public shootings in 2017......117 

US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

by year....

2018.....93
2017........117
*2016......71*
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
Click to expand...



Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings

Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.

Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.

Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...

So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
Click to expand...


If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?


----------



## LeftofLeft

I can’t see this going anywhere. Based on this precedent, we can now go down the slope of suing car manufacturers and knife makers. The same mindset that mows down people on a crowded sidewalk with a car or wield a knife at people at an IKEA is the same mindset that shoots up a school.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?
Click to expand...






He didn't post a rant.  He posted factual data that shows your opinions to be factually wrong.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?
Click to expand...



I merely point out how nothing you post is correct.  Why should you post inaccurate information and ideas and not get challenged on it?

Also.....can you explain, in detail, the magic of Licensing law abiding gun owners, and registering guns?

Can you explain how either one actually reduces criminal access to guns, or stops mass public shooters?

Please, explain the actual way they work.....because you are putting them out there as "common sense" when neither one works.   There is no need to license gun owners, unless you simply want to extract money for the fees.....or to increase the red tape to discourage gun ownership.   As far as registration goes....Canada already did it, and it was a complete failure....for just 15 million long guns, where the cost, the waste of time, and the waste of manpower showed that registration doesn't work.   

Also, again, criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, as per a Supreme Court ruling.

So....what exactly would licensing and registration accomplish if they are "common sense?"

Also.....registration?  Again, Britain, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and now New Zealand, all used their registration lists to later confiscate and ban guns....so tell us again, how registration does not = eventual confiscation.


----------



## 2aguy

LeftofLeft said:


> I can’t see this going anywhere. Based on this precedent, we can now go down the slope of suing car manufacturers and knife makers. The same mindset that mows down people on a crowded sidewalk with a car or wield a knife at people at an IKEA is the same mindset that shoots up a school.




And the trial lawyers already plan on doing exactly that...and it just so happens they are one of the biggest contributors to the democrat party, the party pushing suing gun makers....


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted....


Unsupportable nonsense.   Licensure does nothing to prevent the licensee from breaking the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?
Click to expand...

nothing coming from an anti-gunner is accurate or relevant


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
Click to expand...

The number of people killed in mass shootings also fell, from 437 to 373, while the number of people injured in such incidents dropped sharply to 1,347 — a 25 percent decline. Mass shooting deaths represent a mere 1 percent of annual gun deaths.
Gun Deaths Dropped in 2018, Excluding Suicides


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most gun owners favor stronger gun laws.  Comprehensive background checks.
> 
> Another fact is that gun makers and opioid manufacturers deliberately flooded a market they know is oversaturated.  They knew damned well their pills and their guns were going to end up in the hands of people who had no business consuming their pills or possessing their guns.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who need opioids.  Yet the drug makers manufactured exponentially more than is needed.  No one will ever convince me they didn't deliberately create the opioid crisis to boost profits.
> 
> There are only so many people in America who can and should own a gun.  No one will ever convince me the gun makers didn't deliberately create the mass murder crisis in America to boost profits.
> 
> Trump whines and whines about an imaginary crisis on the border.  Meanwhile, 30 Americans are being murdered by guns every day.  I don't see Trump or Fox News using one of those victims as their poster child for a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't post a rant.  He posted factual data that shows your opinions to be factually wrong.
Click to expand...


I disagree with both of your conclusions.  Keep in mind, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".  No statistic will ever excuse the evil murders of 5 and 6 year old, and their parents and siblings.

You are now going to go to the Callous Conservative Policy Manuel and claim my response is an appeal to emotion.  So be it, we will never agree, and I know I'm honest, and I know you are not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't post a rant.  He posted factual data that shows your opinions to be factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with both of your conclusions.  Keep in mind, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".  No statistic will ever excuse the evil murders of 5 and 6 year old, and their parents and siblings.
> 
> You are now going to go to the Callous Conservative Policy Manuel and claim my response is an appeal to emotion.  So be it, we will never agree, and I know I'm honest, and I know you are not.
Click to expand...

If you cared about kids you would push to protect them in areas they are most vulnerable those gun free zones you place them in.


----------



## cutter

I’ll bet the auto makers are really dreading this one. I will be able to sue Mercedes Benz because of the injuries my family suffered because the driver of one of their cars failed to stop and hit them head on.
Every auto maked will bear financial responsibility for every drunk driver from now on.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't post a rant.  He posted factual data that shows your opinions to be factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with both of your conclusions.  Keep in mind, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".  No statistic will ever excuse the evil murders of 5 and 6 year old, and their parents and siblings.
> 
> You are now going to go to the Callous Conservative Policy Manuel and claim my response is an appeal to emotion.  So be it, we will never agree, and I know I'm honest, and I know you are not.
Click to expand...






Yeah, well, that's the difference between unemotional,  factual arguments,  and emotion based opinions. 

We use logic and facts to support our positions,  and you rely on emotions. 

We have never once claimed it is OK for innocent children to be murdered as you imply here.  In fact we deplore any violence against anyone.   Period.

You don't.   In your twisted world view it is ok to assault those who disagree with your views, either through words, as you did here  or physical violence as your antifart alter egos do with regularity.

So take your emotional arguments and place them in the circular file, where they belong.


----------



## westwall

cutter said:


> I’ll bet the auto makers are really dreading this one. I will be able to sue Mercedes Benz because of the injuries my family suffered because the driver of one of their cars failed to stop and hit them head on.
> Every auto maked will bear financial responsibility for every drunk driver from now on.






Exactly.   That's what these dipshits, like Wry don't understand.   Open the door a smidge and the flood immediately follows.   No business will be left and these idiots will all starve to death when they don't have a supermarket to go to.


----------



## 2aguy

westwall said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll bet the auto makers are really dreading this one. I will be able to sue Mercedes Benz because of the injuries my family suffered because the driver of one of their cars failed to stop and hit them head on.
> Every auto maked will bear financial responsibility for every drunk driver from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   That's what these dipshits, like Wry don't understand.   Open the door a smidge and the flood immediately follows.   No business will be left and these idiots will all starve to death when they don't have a supermarket to go to.
Click to expand...



And toilet paper......but when they don't have food, they wouldn't need toilet paper anyway.....

Notice how the moron went straight to kids.......they love dragging the dead bodies of children into their arguments....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

cutter said:


> I’ll bet the auto makers are really dreading this one. I will be able to sue Mercedes Benz because of the injuries my family suffered because the driver of one of their cars failed to stop and hit them head on.
> Every auto maked will bear financial responsibility for every drunk driver from now on.


actually a Connecticut judge ruled against the lawsuit.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I disagree with both of your conclusions.


Because you consistently refuse to accept the truth when it does not conform to your bigoted, hyper-partisan prejudices.


----------



## Staidhup

A very sad tragedy that could and should have been avoided if his mother had simply denied him access to firearms.


----------



## Staidhup

His mother possibly made an attempt to correct the wrong which cost her life, however, as I recall the warning signs were blinking years prior, and once again a nut case slipped through the cracks.


----------



## 2aguy

Staidhup said:


> A very sad tragedy that could and should have been avoided if his mother had simply denied him access to firearms.




She did.   He murdered her to get the key...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

iceberg said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
> Note one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts. There is only one way to prevent suing - a special law that grants immunity. Gun industry is nearly unique in that it has such immunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine. remove the immunity.
> 
> you lose the case, you pay *all* court costs.
Click to expand...

Attorneys bringing this action will post a $1 million cash bond to pay defense attorney fees, forfeited on a defensive verdict, regardless of actual defense attorney fees.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No most gun owners do not favor stronger gun laws because stronger gun laws do nothing to prevent crimes. What we do favor is enforcing current laws. Improving mental health system, controlling the gang system.
> STOP comparing an illegal item with a legal item.
> Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths
> 
> OH FYI I'm a few months ahead of this post there is a crisis at the border sorry to inform you about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement: "Mass murders account for less than 1% of gun deaths"
> 
> Response:  Please post the data to support this allegation.
> 
> Also, mass murderers cannot be determined until they act; most mentally ill persons are non violent, thus their rights to live without being considered potentially violent is unfair, and using them as a scapegoat is callous.
> 
> Also, unless and until we can vet and license gun owners***, or those who want to be owners of guns, we will continue to see mass shootings where the perp has not been fully vetted, and state, county, city and town agencies do not share data on individuals with civil restraining orders, civil judgement (divorces and civil detentions as a danger to themselves or others), any military or school records, and the opinions of family, friends, employers and neighbors.
> 
> All of these and more are required by most police agencies when a person applies for employment; even then mistakes happen and armed officers, deputies, agents can be or become risks to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun ownership is a Right, there is no vetting that isn't a restriction on that Right.   The mass shooters who had mental issues were well know to both their mental health professionals and to the police well before the act....licensing millions of normal people, to cover the mistakes of the police in not dealing with dangerous people will not stop mass public shootings
> 
> Parkland...the police made 30 visits to his home, and the shooter had committed felonies at his school.
> 
> Pulse Nightclub....the shooter passed an extensive work background check, a background check for each gun purchase, 2 full, FBI interviews an extensive FBI background investigation and an undercover approach.
> 
> Vegas shooter...no history of mental illness...passed federal background checks on every single purchase...
> 
> So nothing you posted is accurate or relevant to this discussion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing I posted is accurate or relevant, why do you always flip out and posts rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't post a rant.  He posted factual data that shows your opinions to be factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with both of your conclusions.  Keep in mind, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".  No statistic will ever excuse the evil murders of 5 and 6 year old, and their parents and siblings.
> 
> You are now going to go to the Callous Conservative Policy Manuel and claim my response is an appeal to emotion.  So be it, we will never agree, and I know I'm honest, and I know you are not.
Click to expand...

It's okay to admit when you are clearly wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200

2aguy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll bet the auto makers are really dreading this one. I will be able to sue Mercedes Benz because of the injuries my family suffered because the driver of one of their cars failed to stop and hit them head on.
> Every auto maked will bear financial responsibility for every drunk driver from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   That's what these dipshits, like Wry don't understand.   Open the door a smidge and the flood immediately follows.   No business will be left and these idiots will all starve to death when they don't have a supermarket to go to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And toilet paper......but when they don't have food, they wouldn't need toilet paper anyway.....
> 
> Notice how the moron went straight to kids.......they love dragging the dead bodies of children into their arguments....
Click to expand...


The best kind of human shield is one who can't object to being used as a human shield.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.



  It would probably look a lot like most of would-be _“hunters”_ finding themselves looking very stupid, or dead, or both, as those that they thought they were hunting shot back at them in legitimate self-defense.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.
> 
> So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight....

Your side wants to defund the police.
Your side wants to hunt privately owned guns into extinction.

First, who is going to do the hunting, when you defund the police?

But regardless of that.... so basically you advocate for complete lawlessness? So we can just be like Somalia or something?


----------



## AZrailwhale

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon.  This kind of stuff makes me so angry!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/*life*.
> 
> I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of *social harm* the weapon can cause *vs* the *need* of the individual to have it.
> .
Click to expand...

Freedom is inherently dangerous.  If you want safety, go live in the PRC, DPRK or Venezuela.  The only thing people need to fear there is the government.


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Industries usually get sued for defective products.............Did the weapon misfire........................It works as described and as sold........................
> 
> How they use it is the people buying the guns problem......................This will get overturned...............Unless the Supers gets stacked with a Kangaroo Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, selling a dangerous product with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS as to who might get their hands on them was defective as a business practice.  Yes, the gun did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.  Those 5.56 MM rounds blew a nice big holes into those preschoolers..  They never stood a fucking chance.
> 
> Again, Obama has been spending the last 8 years putting sane judges on the courts.   With Scalia taking that well-deserved dirt nap, SCOTUS won't be stopping common sense gun laws anymore.
Click to expand...

How stupid are you?  Connecticut has a requirement for background checks on all firearm sales, even private, person to person sales.  Connecticut has some of the most restrictive firearms sales laws of any state in the nation.


----------



## Rigby5

There is no question at all that armed citizens are always safer than armed mercenary police who work for pay, because the mercenary will always be tempted by a higher bidder.

There is no legal basis for police to even exist, since they essentially did not even exist until around 1900.
Giving police a monopoly on firearms would have to be the stupidest and last free thing anyone ever did.


----------



## eagle1462010

Guess  people are seeing this turkey Joe in my Sigline............I've had that as a sigline for a very long time to remind people what he really is now....................


----------



## justinacolmena

Rigby5 said:


> There is no question at all that armed citizens are always safer than armed mercenary police who work for pay, because the mercenary will always be tempted by a higher bidder.











						Will the Military Become Just Another Politicized Institution? - War on the Rocks
					

“What do your colleagues think of the president?” It’s a question I hear a lot, not only from civilian friends in the United States, but on a regular



					warontherocks.com
				



_>>> “What do your colleagues think of the president?” It’s a question I hear a lot, not only from civilian friends in the United States, but on a regular basis over the last two years from allied officers at the German General Staff College. The truthful answer is that I don’t really know — politics has never been a watercooler topic in the U.S. military, to the point where *I couldn’t tell which candidate any of my commanders voted for. The people I’ve worked with throughout my career focus on the profession of arms. When we do discuss politics, it is usually about the competing interests in Baghdad,* or the dynamics of the Pashtuns in southern Afghanistan. Although every Army company has a voting assistance officer who keeps soldiers informed of upcoming elections and registration deadlines, our business is not domestic politics. As others have commented, this dynamic continues to hold true, even if imperfectly. Senior leaders made it clear that they foresee no role for the military in resolving any electoral dispute, reinforcing the apolitical nature of the U.S. military.<<<_


----------



## Rigby5

justinacolmena said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question at all that armed citizens are always safer than armed mercenary police who work for pay, because the mercenary will always be tempted by a higher bidder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will the Military Become Just Another Politicized Institution? - War on the Rocks
> 
> 
> “What do your colleagues think of the president?” It’s a question I hear a lot, not only from civilian friends in the United States, but on a regular
> 
> 
> 
> warontherocks.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _>>> “What do your colleagues think of the president?” It’s a question I hear a lot, not only from civilian friends in the United States, but on a regular basis over the last two years from allied officers at the German General Staff College. The truthful answer is that I don’t really know — politics has never been a watercooler topic in the U.S. military, to the point where *I couldn’t tell which candidate any of my commanders voted for. The people I’ve worked with throughout my career focus on the profession of arms. When we do discuss politics, it is usually about the competing interests in Baghdad,* or the dynamics of the Pashtuns in southern Afghanistan. Although every Army company has a voting assistance officer who keeps soldiers informed of upcoming elections and registration deadlines, our business is not domestic politics. As others have commented, this dynamic continues to hold true, even if imperfectly. Senior leaders made it clear that they foresee no role for the military in resolving any electoral dispute, reinforcing the apolitical nature of the U.S. military.<<<_
Click to expand...


I think you miss the point.
Politics have nothing to do with police states and dictatorships.
It is payroll that does.
And it is when you have armed mercenary forces, be it police or the military, that they do what those who sign their paychecks tell them to do.

That is obvious even now, because you mention Baghdad, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And clearly we should not be in either country, or ever have been.
US troops being in Iraq or Afghanistan is illegal according to MANY different US laws.
Neither country attacked us and we had no legal right to attack either one of them.


----------



## eagle1462010

eagle1462010 said:


> Guess  people are seeing this turkey Joe in my Sigline............I've had that as a sigline for a very long time to remind people what he really is now....................


Nice thread to see the comments in the past of the peeps like in my sig line.


----------



## easyt65

So...
-  Victims of a wreck caused by someone DUI can sue alcohol manufacturers?

- Families whose loved ones die of heart attacks,  obesity-related health conditions can sue Hersheys, Nabisco, Krispy Creme, etc...?

- Families of loved ones killed by someone wielding a hammer can sue the hammer manufacturer?

-Families of those killed by having their heads bashed in with a brick or baseball bat can sue the brick maker or lumber company / bat manufacturer?

It only stands to reason if families of deceased victims can sue a company for the misuse of its product after it was purchased all these other law suits would be potentially be allowed.....


----------



## eagle1462010

easyt65 said:


> So...
> -  Victims of a wreck caused by someone DUI can sue alcohol manufacturers?
> 
> - Families whose loved ones die of heart attacks,  obesity-related health conditions can sue Hersheys, Nabisco, Krispy Creme, etc...?
> 
> - Families of loved ones killed by someone wielding a hammer can sue the hammer manufacturer?
> 
> -Families of those killed by having their heads bashed in with a brick or baseball bat can sue the brick maker or lumber company / bat manufacturer?
> 
> It only stands to reason if families of deceased victims can sue a company for the misuse of its product after it was purchased all these other law suits would be potentially be allowed.....


Old thread.  Where I got my sigline from Joe.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
> 
> BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
> 
> hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
> 
> Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
> 
> 
> “They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
> 
> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
> 
> “I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
> 
> Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
> 
> But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
> 
> The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
> 
> Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
> 
> Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
> 
> “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
> 
> Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
> 
> U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
> 
> “It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
> 
> 
> This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......


These are the same kinds of judges that have brought us the Biden administration, the collusion hoax, unfettered abortion, men in women's sport's, and far to many more tragic rulings over the year's that keeps tearing this nation apart at it's seams.. Trump didn't make it far enough when it came to draining the swamp of these judge's (sending them packing).


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Gun companies can be sued when the product they makes malfunctions and someone is harm. But they cannot be sued for the misuse of the product they made.








						Text of S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us
					

Text of S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in … as of Oct 28, 2005 (Passed Congress version). S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act




					www.govtrack.us


----------



## westwall

easyt65 said:


> So...
> -  Victims of a wreck caused by someone DUI can sue alcohol manufacturers?
> 
> - Families whose loved ones die of heart attacks,  obesity-related health conditions can sue Hersheys, Nabisco, Krispy Creme, etc...?
> 
> - Families of loved ones killed by someone wielding a hammer can sue the hammer manufacturer?
> 
> -Families of those killed by having their heads bashed in with a brick or baseball bat can sue the brick maker or lumber company / bat manufacturer?
> 
> It only stands to reason if families of deceased victims can sue a company for the misuse of its product after it was purchased all these other law suits would be potentially be allowed.....




Yup.  That is the result.  Sue everyone and clog up the Court system.


----------



## Resnic

ChrisL said:


> So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers?  Ridiculous.



Or if I crash my Corolla into a crowd of people then someone sue Toyota?

A gun is a god damned inanimate object. It can't do anything. I've had a loaded p226 in my night stand for 10 years and it's never harmed anyone. 

The gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for what someone else does with their product.


----------



## Rigby5

Being able to sue does not mean you are going to win.
If gun makers put out inflammatory commercials of some sort, then sure, lawsuits may be appropriate.
But I have never seen any.
In fact, I have never seen any firearm commercial.


----------



## beagle9

Resnic said:


> Or if I crash my Corolla into a crowd of people then someone sue Toyota?
> 
> A gun is a god damned inanimate object. It can't do anything. I've had a loaded p226 in my night stand for 10 years and it's never harmed anyone.
> 
> The gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for what someone else does with their product.


I've had guns all my childhood to adult life, and right on up until now, and some of the gun's I still have to this very day. Yep as far as I know they've never hurt not one person in life. Now deer and such is another story.. lol


----------



## eagle1462010

beagle9 said:


> I've had guns all my childhood to adult life, and right on up until now, and some of the gun's I still have to this very day. Yep as far as I know they've never hurt not one person in life. Now deer and such is another story.. lol


Let nephews use my childhood weapons at my hunting land.......Brought some friends from school.  Glass all over the driveway.........and low and behold my guns got STOLEN.

Haven't replaced them.  Was fond of my 30/30 Winchester.  22 Marlin I had since about 10.  Compound bow with sights and trigger gone too.  When I practiced a lot could hit a small square consistent at 50 yards with it.  If I got one now I'd probably need a whole bunch of arrows.........lol


----------



## beagle9

Rigby5 said:


> Being able to sue does not mean you are going to win.
> If gun makers put out inflammatory commercials of some sort, then sure, lawsuits may be appropriate.
> But I have never seen any.
> In fact, I have never seen any firearm commercial.


I've seen Henry rifle commercials, but come to think of it that's all I've ever seen. Maybe back in the day I might have saw a black powder gun commercial, but not to sure about that one either. 

This sue crap is a tactic leftist are hoping that will break down the power structure eventually (making the most powerful to cower in the situation), and this way the system becomes more and more vulnerable to the leftist agenda. This is why judges have become front and center in the fight for justice and freedom in this country. Judges going along to get along with leftist tyranny's, uhhhh are judge's that need to be barred or replaced eventually. Either a judge sticks with the constitution or they are the enemy of the constitution.. Their choice in their rulings found.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> Let nephews use my childhood weapons at my hunting land.......Brought some friends from school.  Glass all over the driveway.........and low and behold my guns got STOLEN.
> 
> Haven't replaced them.  Was fond of my 30/30 Winchester.  22 Marlin I had since about 10.  Compound bow with sights and trigger gone too.  When I practiced a lot could hit a small square consistent at 50 yards with it.  If I got one now I'd probably need a whole bunch of arrows.........lol


It's a shame what goes on.... We had a thief one time, and I couldn't catch that rascal for nothing. Finally we moved and got away from the bull crap. We didn't move because of the bull crap, but we were just going to move anyway. Glad we did. The problem these days though, is that anywhere you go anymore, it seems to be getting worse and worse.

They didn't get my guns. Had them secured good.


----------



## Faun

Resnic said:


> Or if I crash my Corolla into a crowd of people then someone sue Toyota?
> 
> A gun is a god damned inanimate object. It can't do anything. I've had a loaded p226 in my night stand for 10 years and it's never harmed anyone.
> 
> The gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for what someone else does with their product.



The difference is ... unlike a gun, your Corolla wasn't designed and built to kill.


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> The difference is ... unlike a gun, your Corolla wasn't designed and built to kill.





Neither is the gun.  It is designed to propel a projectile to a target.  Just like a hammer is designed to hammer nails.

It takes an evil person to pervert the tools useage.


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> Neither is the gun.  It is designed to propel a projectile to a target.  Just like a hammer is designed to hammer nails.
> 
> It takes an evil person to pervert the tools useage.



LOL

You're such a retard. If guns weren't designed and built to kill, they wouldn't be used in war.


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> You're such a retard. If guns weren't designed and built to kill, they wouldn't be used in war.




Neither would trucks, motorcycles or airplanes.

DURRRRRR


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> Neither would trucks, motorcycles or airplanes.
> 
> DURRRRRR



LOL

Moron, trucks and motorcycles are not used in war to kill. Guns are because that's what they're designed to do. Planes are used to kill which they do by dropping bombs, firing missiles, or shooting guns.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

beagle9 said:


> I've seen Henry rifle commercials, but come to think of it that's all I've ever seen. Maybe back in the day I might have saw a black powder gun commercial, but not to sure about that one either.
> 
> This sue crap is a tactic leftist are hoping that will break down the power structure eventually (making the most powerful to cower in the situation), and this way the system becomes more and more vulnerable to the leftist agenda. This is why judges have become front and center in the fight for justice and freedom in this country. Judges going along to get along with leftist tyranny's, uhhhh are judge's that need to be barred or replaced eventually. Either a judge sticks with the constitution or they are the enemy of the constitution.. Their choice in their rulings found.


I have posted this before, what needs to be done by the law abiding citizens of the US, is if they see a Progressive politician, do what BLM/ANTIFA do to the police.  Throw frozen water bottles or molotov cocktails at them show them they arent wanted here anymore.  See video below.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

beagle9 said:


> It's a shame what goes on.... We had a thief one time, and I couldn't catch that rascal for nothing. Finally we moved and got away from the bull crap. We didn't move because of the bull crap, but we were just going to move anyway. Glad we did. The problem these days though, is that anywhere you go anymore, it seems to be getting worse and worse.
> 
> They didn't get my guns. Had them secured good.


Well, this is Joe Biden's America, arent you glad the 2020 election was stolen?


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Moron, trucks and motorcycles are not used in war to kill. Guns are because that's what they're designed to do. Planes are used to kill which they do by dropping bombs, firing missiles, or shooting guns.





Sure they are.  They provide the logistical support that is required to wage war.  

Idiot.


----------



## beagle9

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Well, this is Joe Biden's America, arent you glad the 2020 election was stolen?


Glad it was stolen ? Why would you put that in that way ? I can't stand the corrupt government we have now, but looking back I see lot's of traitor's who helped the Democrat's achieve their goals. It's a sick situation after taking in the whole picture, and knowing now all the player's that were involved looking back on it all now. Sad situation.


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> Sure they are.  They provide the logistical support that is required to wage war.
> 
> Idiot.



LOL

Imbecile, Trucks and motorcycles are used for their designed purpose of transportation, not killing; whereas guns are used for their designed purpose of killing people.


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Imbecile, Trucks and motorcycles are used for their designed purpose of transportation, not killing; whereas guns are used for their designed purpose of killing people.





With no logistics, no killing.

DURRRRRR


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> The difference is ... unlike a gun, your Corolla wasn't designed and built to kill.


My sofa wasn't designed to go on the freeway, either.


----------



## Rigby5

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Moron, trucks and motorcycles are not used in war to kill. Guns are because that's what they're designed to do. Planes are used to kill which they do by dropping bombs, firing missiles, or shooting guns.



Wrong.
Weapons are intended to defend.
We do not have weapons in the US because we want to kill.
We have weapons because everyone else has weapons as well, and our weapons are the only way to prevent us from being killed or enslaved.
If we give the government a monopoly on weapons, then within some short period of time, we will all either be killed or enslaved.
That is because governments work for money, not principles like rights, and always work for the most corrupt who pay them the most.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Imbecile, Trucks and motorcycles are used for their designed purpose of transportation, not killing; whereas guns are used for their designed purpose of killing people.


When I have an intruder in my home, I want something designed to kill, not something designed to take me to the grocery store


----------



## Rigby5

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Imbecile, Trucks and motorcycles are used for their designed purpose of transportation, not killing; whereas guns are used for their designed purpose of killing people.



Wrong.
There are bad guys with guns, but even they do not have the intent of killing with guns.
Their purpose is to use guns in order to extort others into giving up the fruits of their labor.
Just killing someone produces no profit, so only an insane person would do that.
The bad guys are not insane, just greedy.
And the only way to stop the greedy is to be armed with defensive weapons, to intimidate them back.


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> With no logistics, no killing.
> 
> DURRRRRR



Vehicles are still not used to kill. They're used to transport. An 8 year old kid could understand that but you cannot.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> My sofa wasn't designed to go on the freeway, either.


----------



## Faun

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Weapons are intended to defend.
> We do not have weapons in the US because we want to kill.
> We have weapons because everyone else has weapons as well, and our weapons are the only way to prevent us from being killed or enslaved.
> If we give the government a monopoly on weapons, then within some short period of time, we will all either be killed or enslaved.
> That is because governments work for money, not principles like rights, and always work for the most corrupt who pay them the most.



Guns are designed to kill. That's their purpose. You think people go hunting for food with the intention of not killing their prey?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> When I have an intruder in my home, I want something designed to kill, not something designed to take me to the grocery store



Which is all very fine. What you don't need to stop an intruder is an AR-15 style weapon which is designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, without being an automatic firearm.


----------



## Faun

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> There are bad guys with guns, but even to do not have the intent of killing with guns.
> Their purpose is to use guns in order to extort others into giving up the fruits of their labor.
> Just killing someone produces no profit, so only an insane person would do that.
> The bad guys are not insane, just greedy.
> And the only way to stop the greedy is to be armed with defensive weapons, to intimidate them back.



Fuckstick, tens of thousands of Americans are killed each year by guns. Clearly, the "bad guys" aren't letting everyone live to rob them.


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> Vehicles are still not used to kill. They're used to transport. An 8 year old kid could understand that but you cannot.





Sure they are.  Drunk drivers kill more people than guns do you retard.


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> Sure they are.  Drunk drivers kill more people than guns do you retard.



My G-d, are you demented. I'm saying cars are not designed and built to kill. Guns are.


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> My G-d, are you demented. I'm saying cars are not designed and built to kill. Guns are.




And they are pretty fucking poor at it when cars kill more people you ignorant fucking clod!


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> And they are pretty fucking poor at it when cars kill more people you ignorant fucking clod!



LOL

Imbecile, far more people drive cars everyday than shoot guns. Cars, unlike guns, are still not designed and built to kill. 

Have you always been this retarded?


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Imbecile, far more people drive cars everyday than shoot guns. Cars, unlike guns, are still not designed and built to kill.
> 
> Have you always been this retarded?





Wrong.  There are twice as many guns as there are motor vehicles of all types.


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> Wrong.  There are twice as many guns as there are motor vehicles of all types.



LOL

Idiot, that's not what I said, now is it?


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Idiot, that's not what I said, now is it?





Who cares.  There are orders of magnitude fewer DRUNK drivers than there are guns, and gun owners.

And they kill more.

DURRRRRR


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> Who cares.  There are orders of magnitude fewer DRUNK drivers than there are guns, and gun owners.
> 
> And they kill more.
> 
> DURRRRRR



No, they don't, ya fucking moron. 

There are about 10,000 deaths by drunk drivers in a year.

Last year, there were about 21,000 murders by guns.

And you're such an idiot, you're proving my point without even realizing it. I point out that cars, unlike guns, are designed to kill -- and here you are, comparing gun deaths to car deaths. Forget your ignorance above about drunk drivers, you're talking about car deaths where the vast majority are by accident and gun deaths where the vast majority are intentional. Means car deaths are caused by a device not designed to kill; whereas gun deaths are.


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> No, they don't, ya fucking moron.
> 
> There are about 10,000 deaths by drunk drivers in a year.
> 
> Last year, there were about 21,000 murders by guns.
> 
> And you're such an idiot, you're proving my point without even realizing it. I point out that cars, unlike guns, are designed to kill -- and here you are, comparing gun deaths to car deaths. Forget your ignorance above about drunk drivers, you're talking about car deaths where the vast majority are by accident and gun deaths where the vast majority are intentional. Means car deaths are caused by a device not designed to kill; whereas gun deaths are.





You are so full of shit.  The average is 34,000 drunk driving deaths per year, and 10,000 murders.

Put another way, I have lost 6 friends to drunk drivers, and one nephew to murder.

So you are simply wrong.


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> You are so full of shit.  The average is 34,000 drunk driving deaths per year, and 10,000 murders.
> 
> Put another way, I have lost 6 friends to drunk drivers, and one nephew to murder.
> 
> So you are simply wrong.



I just gave you a link to MADD. I'm confident they know more than you about drunk drivers. And I gave you a link regarding gun deaths.

What I love about the way you post is no matter how much of a beating you take, you keep coming back for more punishment.


----------



## westwall

Faun said:


> I just gave you a link to MADD. I'm confident they know more than you about drunk drivers. And I gave you a link regarding gun deaths.
> 
> What I love about the way you post is no matter how much of a beating you take, you keep coming back for more punishment.





Who cares.  They are wrong.  There are plenty of credible sources for drunk driving deaths.


----------



## Faun

westwall said:


> Who cares.  They are wrong.  There are plenty of credible sources for drunk driving deaths.



And I posted 2 links corroborating my claim while you posted nothing but spittle.

Here's 2 more...

*Gun deaths...*

​

*Drunk driving deaths...*









						Drunk Driving Statistics 2022
					

Each day about 28 people in America die in drunk-driving car crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  So over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, more than 10,000 people died each year in drunk driving car accidents, says NHTSA.  In 2019, drunk driving




					www.forbes.com
				




_Each day about 28 people in America die in drunk-driving car crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

So over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, more than 10,000 people died each year in drunk driving car accidents, says NHTSA.

In 2019, drunk driving deaths in the United States reached their lowest level since 1982, the year the NHTSA began collecting data on drunk driving fatalities, with 10,142 fatalities_​
That's now 4 links from me, nothing from you. Are ya feeling stupid yet??


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

beagle9 said:


> Glad it was stolen ? Why would you put that in that way ? I can't stand the corrupt government we have now, but looking back I see lot's of traitor's who helped the Democrat's achieve their goals. It's a sick situation after taking in the whole picture, and knowing now all the player's that were involved looking back on it all now. Sad situation.


I was using sarcasm, progressives hate sarcasm.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Which is all very fine. What you don't need to stop an intruder is an AR-15 style weapon which is designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, without being an automatic firearm.


Yes you do.  Do you believe people should use some puny .22 that holds one shot to defend themselves?  Why should anyone take any such risk with his life?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Yes you do.  Do you believe people should use some puny .22 that holds one shot to defend themselves?  Why should anyone take any such risk with his life?



There are plenty of guns more powerful than a .22. You don't need a gun capable of killing dozens of people in a minute and without reloading.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> There are plenty of guns more powerful than a .22. You don't need a gun capable of killing dozens of people in a minute and without reloading.



Who are you to say what people need?  The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the government gets to determine what kind of guns you can buy.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Who are you to say what people need?  The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the government gets to determine what kind of guns you can buy.



The 2nd Amendment has restrictions on what guns civilians can have. Guns legally designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, should be added to that list. These types of guns have been banned before; they'll be banned again.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> The 2nd Amendment has restrictions on what guns civilians can have. Guns legally designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, should be added to that list. These types of guns have been banned before; they'll be banned again.


No, it actually doesn't.  Leftists politicians have added those after the fact.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> No, it actually doesn't.  Leftists politicians have added those after the fact.



Fucking moron, yes, some guns are illegal for civilians and the Supreme Court has upheld they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Again, weapons like AR-15's have been banned before and they'll be banned again.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, yes, some guns are illegal for civilians and the Supreme Court has upheld they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Again, weapons like AR-15's have been banned before and they'll be banned again.


Fucking moron, the SC rules incorrectly all the time.  The fact that the government ignores your constitutional rights proves nothing.  If the court strikes down the Roe v Wade decision, are you going to support that?  Of course you won't, dumbfuck.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Fucking moron, the SC rules incorrectly all the time.  The fact that the government ignores your constitutional rights proves nothing.  If the court strikes down the Roe v Wade decision, are you going to support that?  Of course you won't, dumbfuck.



Fucking moron, the Supreme Court didn't rule incorrectly merely because you disagree with them.


----------



## hadit

Faun said:


> Which is all very fine. What you don't need to stop an intruder is an AR-15 style weapon which is designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, without being an automatic firearm.


You do not have standing to decide what someone else "needs" to defend their home. 

You have to love it when someone thinks conditions are the same in a home at 2:30 am as they are at a shooting range where the lighting is ideal, the shooter has come prepared to shoot, is fully awake and there is no threat.

There's a reason why the police are notorious for shooting a LOT of bullets when a suspect charges at them, despite their training with their firearms. Quite frankly, a lot of bullets miss under stressful conditions. How many bullets would you need to stop 3 armed intruders in your home?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, the Supreme Court didn't rule incorrectly merely because you disagree with them.


Fucking moron, either it ruled correctly when it decided Roe v. Wade, or it will rule correctly when it repeals Roe v. Wade.  Either way, it ruled incorrectly at least once. Your theory that the court is infallible is obviously absurd.


----------



## Faun

hadit said:


> You do not have standing to decide what someone else "needs" to defend their home.



United States v. Miller says otherwise.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Fucking moron, either it ruled correctly when it decided Roe v. Wade, or it will rule correctly when it repeals Roe v. Wade.  Either way, it ruled incorrectly at least once. Your theory that the court is infallible is obviously absurd.



Fucking moron, I never said the court is infallible. I said they're not wrong just because you disagree with them.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> United States v. Miller says otherwise.


Another wrong court decision.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, I never said the court is infallible. I said they're not wrong just because you disagree with them.


Fucking moron, yes you did imply they are infallible because you claim something is constitutional simply because the SC says it is


----------



## hadit

Faun said:


> United States v. Miller says otherwise.


Your name doesn't come up in that case. You have no standing.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Fucking moron, yes you did imply they are infallible because you claim something is constitutional simply because the SC says it is



LOL

Fucking moron, that's actually how our government functions... something IS constitutional when the Supreme Court rules it is.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??


----------



## Faun

hadit said:


> Your name doesn't come up in that case. You have no standing.



You don't know my name. And again, there's already been a ban on those types of weapons and legal challenges against it lost because the government can ban certain types of firearms.


----------



## hadit

Faun said:


> You don't know my name. And again, there's already been a ban on those types of weapons and legal challenges against it lost because the government can ban certain types of firearms.


The fact is, you can claim someone doesn't "need" a certain type of firearm, but unless the courts agree, your claim is groundless.


----------



## Faun

hadit said:


> The fact is, you can claim someone doesn't "need" a certain type of firearm...



Which is what I did.



hadit said:


> but unless the courts agree...



They already have.



hadit said:


> ...your claim is groundless.



Nope, not groundless. Again,  United States v. Miller ruled the government can ban some types of firearms. Again, the government already banned AR-15 types of firearms and defeated legal challenges against that ban.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Fucking moron, that's actually how our government functions... something IS constitutional when the Supreme Court rules it is.
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever??


That isn't how reality functions.  What the SC says doesn't necessary comport with what the document actually says.

Please tell us, is it possible for the SC to be wrong?  Yes or no?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> That isn't how reality functions.  What the SC says doesn't necessary comport with what the document actually says.
> 
> Please tell us, is it possible for the SC to be wrong?  Yes or no?
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?



LOL

You poor thing, you truly have no idea how the government works. 

Are you ever not a fucking moron? 

Ever???


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, you truly have no idea how the government works.
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???


I know how reality functions.  The court is not infallible, but here you are pretending it is, but you don't want to admit it.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> I know how reality functions.  The court is not infallible, but here you are pretending it is, but you don't want to admit it.
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever?



LOL

Now you prove to be so brain-dead, you can't even think up your own insults. How sad is that?

Again, fucking moron, I never said the Supreme Court is infallible. I can't help you're too fucking retarded to understand I already said that.

I also pointed out the Supreme Court is not wrong just because a fucking moron like you disagrees with them. I can't help you understand that either since I already said that too.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???


----------



## hadit

Faun said:


> Which is what I did.
> 
> 
> 
> They already have.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not groundless. Again,  United States v. Miller ruled the government can ban some types of firearms. Again, the government already banned AR-15 types of firearms and defeated legal challenges against that ban.


1. It's not the law-abiding gun owner who's shooting up schools. They can have whatever firepower they deem either necessary or desirable. They're not breaking the law or hurting anyone.
2. AR's still account for a very small percentage of "gun deaths". Trying to eliminate them will do precisely zero to the number of deaths. Tell you what, since the AR has been de-criminalized, has the number of gun deaths gone up or down? That should tell you what will likely happen if you again criminalize big, black, scary-looking guns.


----------



## Faun

hadit said:


> 1. It's not the law-abiding gun owner who's shooting up schools. They can have whatever firepower they deem either necessary or desirable. They're not breaking the law or hurting anyone.
> 2. AR's still account for a very small percentage of "gun deaths". Trying to eliminate them will do precisely zero to the number of deaths. Tell you what, since the AR has been de-criminalized, has the number of gun deaths gone up or down? That should tell you what will likely happen if you again criminalize big, black, scary-looking guns.



Again ... it's constitutional to ban those guns. Again ... it's been done before, getting past legal objections. Again ... it can be done again.

Nothing in your post refutes any of that.


----------



## hadit

Faun said:


> Again ... it's constitutional to ban those guns. Again ... it's been done before, getting past legal objections. Again ... it can be done again.
> 
> Nothing in your post refutes any of that.


Your OPINION about what someone desires for home defense is worthless. That's what I've been saying this whole time, not whether a black gun can be criminalized then decriminalized, then criminalized again.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, you truly have no idea how the government works.
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???


I watching you weasel when you get caught saying something stupid:

Answer the question, dumb fuck,  can the SC be wrong or not?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> I watching you weasel when you get caught saying something stupid:
> 
> Answer the question, dumb fuck,  can the SC be wrong or not?
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???



I already answered that, fucking moron, by pointing out I never denied they can be wrong. That's just a strawman diversion from you because you don't like the fact I pointed out that you're not the arbitrator of whether they're right or not.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Again ... it's constitutional to ban those guns. Again ... it's been done before, getting past legal objections. Again ... it can be done again.
> 
> Nothing in your post refutes any of that.


Why, because the Supreme Court it infallible?  Where does the 2nd Amendment say it's OK to ban certain kinds of weapons?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> I already answered that, fucking moron, by pointing out I never denied they can be wrong. That's just a strawman diversion from you because you don't like the fact I pointed out that you're not the arbitrator of whether they're right or not.


Ye, but then whenever asked to prove your claim is constitutional, you do nothing but cite the Supreme Court over and over.


----------



## hadit

Faun said:


> I already answered that, fucking moron, by pointing out I never denied they can be wrong. That's just a strawman diversion from you because you don't like the fact I pointed out that you're not the arbitrator of whether they're right or not.


And you're not the arbitrator of who needs what to defend their home. It just doesn't matter if a black scary looking gun can be outlawed.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Fucking moron, that's actually how our government functions... something IS constitutional when the Supreme Court rules it is.
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever??


It may be what the government can legally enforce, but that doesn't make it constitutional in any absolute sense.  No one is talking about how the government functions.  The government is strictly dysfunctional, so that discussion is a total red herring.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Why, because the Supreme Court it infallible?  Where does the 2nd Amendment say it's OK to ban certain kinds of weapons?



Fucking moron, all it says is we have the right to bear arms. It's doesn't mean any arms you want. Trying obtaining a nuclear device. See what happens to you when you get caught.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Ye, but then whenever asked to prove your claim is constitutional, you do nothing but cite the Supreme Court over and over.



Because they are the leading authority on what is and is not constitutional. I couldn't care less that bothers you.


----------



## Faun

hadit said:


> And you're not the arbitrator of who needs what to defend their home. It just doesn't matter if a black scary looking gun can be outlawed.



I'm referencing the laws which have been upheld. You're referencing nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, all it says is we have the right to bear arms. It's doesn't mean any arms you want. Trying obtaining a nuclear device. See what happens to you when you get caught.


Sure it does.  What part of "shall no be abridged" don't you understand?

Whether the government has made something illegal doesn't mean it followed the Constitution.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> It may be what the government can legally enforce, but that doesn't make it constitutional in any absolute sense.  No one is talking about how the government functions.  The government is strictly dysfunctional, so that discussion is a total red herring.



LOL

Of course, you would prefer a complete fucking moron like you to be the decider of what is and what is not constitutional. No one cares what a fucking moron like you thinks is not constitutional. It's why you are a fucking moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Because they are the leading authority on what is and is not constitutional. I couldn't care less that bothers you.


_Appeal to authority_:  a logical fallacy.

You're admitting that no one should believe a thing you say.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Sure it does.  What part of "shall no be abridged" don't you understand?
> 
> Whether the government has made something illegal doesn't mean it followed the Constitution.



Again, fucking moron, it doesn't define what is "arms." For that, the Supreme Court has to decide. Which they did. Your lack of understanding not withstanding.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> _Appeal to authority_:  a logical fallacy.
> 
> You're admitting that no one should believe a thing you say.



LOL

Cries a fucking moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Again, fucking moron, it doesn't define what is "arms." For that, the Supreme Court has to decide. Which they did. Your lack of understanding not withstanding.


 A sawed off shotgun is clearly an "arm."  The SC decided wrong.


----------



## hadit

Faun said:


> I'm referencing the laws which have been upheld. You're referencing nothing.


Well, I am referencing your opinion, so okay.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> A sawed off shotgun is clearly an "arm."  The SC decided wrong.



Fucking moron, it says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. You can be banned from owning certain arms while at the same time, you're not banned from arming yourself. Again, a nuclear bomb constitutes "arms." You're batshit crazy to think it's constitutional to be in possession of a nuclear bomb in America.


----------



## Faun

hadit said:


> Well, I am referencing your opinion, so okay.



It's not my opinion the Supreme Court upheld banning certain types of guns. Nor is I my opinion that the government already banned a bunch of guns in 1994 which was successfully defended against legal objections.

So no, it's not my opinion you have a problem with; it's reality with which you struggle.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Faun said:


> It's not my opinion the Supreme Court upheld banning certain types of guns.


Correct.   It's a lie.
No such ban has been upheld by the USSC.


----------



## Faun

M14 Shooter said:


> Correct.   It's a lie.
> No such ban has been upheld by the USSC.



United States v. Miller


----------



## M14 Shooter

Faun said:


> United States v. Miller


Please copy and paste the text from the holding where the USSC upheld a ban on... anything.


----------



## Faun

M14 Shooter said:


> Please copy and paste the text from the holding where the USSC upheld a ban on... anything.



I already gave you the case where they ruled sawed off shotguns can be constitutionally banned.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Faun said:


> I already gave you the case where they ruled sawed off shotguns can be constitutionally banned.


Nothing in _Miller _upholds a ban on sawed-off shotguns, or any other weapon.
Disagree?
Copy and paste the text from ruling to that effect.


----------



## Faun

M14 Shooter said:


> Nothing in _Miller _upholds a ban on sawed-off shotguns, or any other weapon.
> Disagree?
> Copy and paste the text from ruling to that effect.



Of course I disagree. The Supreme Court upheld the National Firearms Act  of 1934 as they ruled sawed off shotguns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, it says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. You can be banned from owning certain arms while at the same time, you're not banned from arming yourself. Again, a nuclear bomb constitutes "arms." You're batshit crazy to think it's constitutional to be in possession of a nuclear bomb in America.


What part of "shall not be abridged" didn't you understand?  When the Amendment was approved, there were no classes of firearms not covered.

Yes, nuclear arms are covered by the 2nd amendment,  However, it would be impossible for any private citizen to get their hands on one.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> It's not my opinion the Supreme Court upheld banning certain types of guns. Nor is I my opinion that the government already banned a bunch of guns in 1994 which was successfully defended against legal objections.
> 
> So no, it's not my opinion you have a problem with; it's reality with which you struggle.


It's your opinion that any of that is constitutional.  Your argument is simply that the SC is the final authority on what the Constitution means.  That's the attitude of a groveling bootlicker.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> What part of "shall not be abridged" didn't you understand?  When the Amendment was approved, there were no classes of firearms not covered.
> 
> Yes, nuclear arms are covered by the 2nd amendment,  However, it would be impossible for any private citizen to get their hands on one.



Fucking moron, your ability to arm yourself is not abridged if certain weapons are banned for you. Nukes are illegal for people like you. And for good reason.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> It's your opinion that any of that is constitutional.  Your argument is simply that the SC is the final authority on what the Constitution means.  That's the attitude of a groveling bootlicker.



That's actually how this country functions. A pity you're so un-American you don't like it.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, your ability to arm yourself is not abridged if certain weapons are banned for you. Nukes are illegal for people like you. And for good reason.


Yes it is.  End of discussion. What do you believe "abridged" means?

abridge​[ uh-brij ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for: abridge / abridged on Thesaurus.com
📓 High School Level

verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.

to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents:to abridge a reference book.
*
to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail:to abridge a visit;to abridge one's freedom.*

to deprive; cut off.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> That's actually how this country functions. A pity you're so un-American you don't like it.


You keep saying that because you know there is no language in the Constitution that allows the government to regulate firearms.  Yeah, we know the government is run by scumbags who don't follow the laws as written.

How the country functions is dishonest and corrupt.  Did you have an other observations to post?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Yes it is.  End of discussion. What do you believe "abridged" means?
> 
> abridge​[ uh-brij ]SHOW IPA
> 
> 
> See synonyms for: abridge / abridged on Thesaurus.com
> 📓 High School Level
> 
> verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
> 
> to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents:to abridge a reference book.
> 
> *to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail:to abridge a visit;to abridge one's freedom.*
> 
> to deprive; cut off.



Fucking moron, your 2nd Amendment rights are not abridged. You'd still have the right to arm yourself. Of course, I'm saying this to a fucking moron who thinks it's constitutional to possess a nuke.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, your 2nd Amendment rights are not abridged. You'd still have the right to arm yourself. Of course, I'm saying this to a fucking moron who thinks it's constitutional to possess a nuke.


ROFL!  What a fucking moron.  So if he government only allows me to buy an air rifle, my 2nd Amendment rights haven't been limited?

Only a groveling servile bootlicking minion would swallow that logic.

"Limited" does not mean "eliminated."  It means reduced in any way.  Preventing me from owning a sawed off shotgun is limiting what firearms I can own.  That means my 2nd Amendment rights have been abridged (limited)


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> You keep saying that because you know there is no language in the Constitution that allows the government to regulate firearms.  Yeah, we know the government is run by scumbag who don't follow the laws as written.
> 
> How the country functions is dishonest and corrupt.  Did you have an other observations to post?



Great, ignore the part about a "well regulated militia."

Your ignorance aside, the USSC is the final arbiter in determining the constitutionality of laws. Your bitterness over that doesn't actually change anything.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!  What a fucking moron.  So if he government only allows me to buy an air rifle, my 2nd Amendment rights haven't been limited?
> 
> Only a groveling servile bootlicking minion would swallow that logic.
> 
> "Limited" does not mean "eliminated."  It means reduced in any way.  Preventing me from owning a sawed off shotgun is limiting what firearms I can own.  That means my 2nd Amendment rights have been abridged (limited)



Argument absurdum -- the government is not limiting you to air guns.


----------



## initforme

So parents can sue....big whoop.  I have no skin in this game.  The things that bother people.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Great, ignore the part about a "well regulated militia."
> 
> Your ignorance aside, the USSC is the final arbiter in determining the constitutionality of laws. Your bitterness over that doesn't actually change anything.


They determine the definition the government will enforce.  That's not the same as what the words actually mean.

In those days, the meaning of "well regulated" meant well trained and functioning correctly.  It does not mean a pile of government rules.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Argument absurdum -- the government is not limiting you to air guns.


No it isn't but it does limit us to semi-automatic weapons, and it wants to limit us from possessing weapons that possess certain largely cosmetic features.

Furthermore, _argument absurdum_ is not a logical fallacy.  It's a type of argument that is often effective.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> They determine the definition the government will enforce.  That's not the same as what the words actually mean.
> 
> In those days, the meaning of "well regulated" meant well trained and functioning correctly.  It does not mean a pile of government rules.



LOL

Now you're arguing the meaning of the Amendment has changed. Well so have the laws, fucking moron.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> No it isn't but it does limit us to semi-automatic weapons, and it wants to limit us from possessing weapons that possess certain largely cosmetic features.
> 
> Furthermore, _argument absurdum_ is not a logical fallacy.  It's a type of argument that is often effective.



You're arguing nonsense with yourself now.


----------



## beagle9

hadit said:


> 1. It's not the law-abiding gun owner who's shooting up schools. They can have whatever firepower they deem either necessary or desirable. They're not breaking the law or hurting anyone.
> 2. AR's still account for a very small percentage of "gun deaths". Trying to eliminate them will do precisely zero to the number of deaths. Tell you what, since the AR has been de-criminalized, has the number of gun deaths gone up or down? That should tell you what will likely happen if you again criminalize big, black, scary-looking guns.


I know plenty of people who own AR-15s, and nope they aren't using them in crime's, and hopefully they will never have to use them to defend themselves or their property. So far (and so many years), so good.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> Sure it does.  What part of "shall no be abridged" don't you understand?
> 
> Whether the government has made something illegal doesn't mean it followed the Constitution.


Usually and sadly these days, the reason the government is deeming something illegal, uhhhh is because it is doing something illegal. Nothing like them covering one thing up with another these days eh ??


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Now you're arguing the meaning of the Amendment has changed. Well so have the laws, fucking moron.


Nope, the meaning hasn't changed.  You simply wish to use prog definitions of the terms instead of the original definition.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> You're arguing nonsense with yourself now.


You're spewing horseshit, FAUX, and you know it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Faun said:


> Of course I disagree. The Supreme Court upheld the National Firearms Act  of 1934 as they ruled sawed off shotguns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.


Look at you, lying to yourself and everyone else.
Copy and paste the text from ruling where it upheld the NFA ban on short-barreled shotguns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Faun said:


> Great, ignore the part about a "well regulated militia."


The Second Amendment  protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


Faun said:


> Your ignorance aside, the USSC is the final arbiter in determining the constitutionality of laws.


And thus, you agree with the above.


----------



## Faun

M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you, lying to yourself and everyone else.
> Copy and paste the text from ruling where it upheld the NFA ban on short-barreled shotguns.



How sad you're too stupid to find this without my help even after I gave you the case. Oh well, c'est la vie. 









						United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
					

United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.




					supreme.justia.com
				




_*Primary Holding*
Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation._​


----------



## M14 Shooter

Faun said:


> How sad you're too stupid to find this without my help even after I gave you the case. Oh well, c'est la vie.


And yet, you cannot copy and paste the text where the Cort upholds a ban on said shotguns.
Do you know why?
The NFA 1934 does not ban short-barrelled shotguns - or any other guns.
Thus, _Miller _cannot be an example of the Court upholding a ban on guns.

You lied.
Just like I said.


----------



## Faun

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, you cannot copy and paste the text where the Cort upholds a ban on said shotguns.
> Do you know why?
> The NFA 1934 does not ban short-barrelled shotguns - or any other guns.
> Thus, _Miller _cannot be an example of the Court upholding a ban on guns.
> 
> You lied.
> Just like I said.



Again, Miller resulted in establishing there are guns which are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. That makes the ban on sawed shotguns constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Faun said:


> Again, Miller resulted in establishing...


Nothing here changes the fact you lied when you claimed the USSC uphend bans on firearms.


----------



## beagle9

Faun said:


> How sad you're too stupid to find this without my help even after I gave you the case. Oh well, c'est la vie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_*Primary Holding*_​_Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation._​


Who determines the "reasonable relationship" ??? ROTFLMBO - the Democrat's/leftist ??? I think it's we the people that determine what we expect of our representatives wouldn't you say ?

Rogue representative's are a dime a dozen these days, and the citizen's need to vote them out or recall them or impeach them if not being represented properly by them anymore.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, your 2nd Amendment rights are not abridged. You'd still have the right to arm yourself. Of course, I'm saying this to a fucking moron who thinks it's constitutional to possess a nuke.


To limit the right in any way is by definition abridging it.

We know the intent of the founders was that each of us be well enough armed and equipped to shot up and do battle as a light infantryman if needed.  You could not raise a militia ready to fight any other way.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

Faun said:


> Great, ignore the part about a "well regulated militia."
> 
> Your ignorance aside, the USSC is the final arbiter in determining the constitutionality of laws. Your bitterness over that doesn't actually change anything.


Speaking of idiots.  "Well Regulated" has nothing to do with gov't regulation, it simply means to function properly.

"A well regulated clock keeps proper time".

"A well regulated saddle horse is smooth of gait and easy to handle."

You may now return to making a fool of yourself.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Argument absurdum -- the government is not limiting you to air guns.


It's obviously limiting me from having sawed off shotguns and machine guns.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

Faun said:


> How sad you're too stupid to find this without my help even after I gave you the case. Oh well, c'est la vie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_*Primary Holding*_​_Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation._​


The most flawed ruling ever to come down on the subject.

The Very weapons Miller was arrested and convicted of owning were weapons commonly used in trench warfare and clearing bunkers and caves.

Any properly working firearm can be of some benefit militarily.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> How sad you're too stupid to find this without my help even after I gave you the case. Oh well, c'est la vie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_*Primary Holding*_​_Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation._​


So what?  The Miller decision is horseshit.


----------

