Are you tired of the liberal left's tactics?

[Ray From Cleveland]

So in other words, you don't have an answer as to why vote republican. You just gave reasons to not vote democrat. God that's pathetic. The GOP is a joke.

I think keeping Hillary out is a good reason to vote Republican. It's the number one answer actually. If you don't vote Republican or not vote at all, Hillary just may be the next corrupt President. And if you thing that's pathetic, then give me a good reason TO vote for her if not to keep Trump out in your opinion.

For the longest time, most voters voted to keep the other person out--not because their person was so great.

I won't vote for Trump this year, I will vote to keep Hillary out. I didn't vote for Romney, I voted to keep DumBama out. I didn't vote for McCain. I voted to keep DumBama out.

 

[Boss]

So in other words, you don't have an answer as to why vote republican.

To protect gays from radical Islamic terrorists.

 

[JoeB131]

No, every time there is a major massacre, they try to use the poor souls to promote their political agenda.

Yes, it's completely unreasonable to ask why our gun laws are so stupid when someone kills a shitload of people.... WITH A GUN!!!!

It was kind of like when they crashed those airplanes into a building, and some political opportunists actually used the opportunity to get tighter airline security and be more effective hunting down terrorists.

 

[JoeB131]

So in other words, you don't have an answer as to why vote republican.

To protect gays from radical Islamic terrorists.

Except the guy wasn't a "radical Islamic terrorist. He was a gay dude who had some bad hookups on Grindr and decided to shoot the place up because he was able to get a gun too easily.

 

[JoeB131]

Must be. I'm sure God is fixing the election so that the party of thousands of dead babies every year and wants to take his name out of our society gets power.

1) There is no God.
2) Fetuses aren't babies.
3) Abortion is an issue the rich use to get stupid people like you to vote against your own economic interests.

 

[JoeB131]

Not really because very few of us considered GW a real conservative. He was much better than Gore, but certainly not a died in wool conservative. He was just a Republican.

In short. he fucked everything up, so he's not a "true Conservative".

you see, you have to use that kind of qualification when you guys have presidents who bring us wars, recessions, scandals nd the like. "Why was Nixon/Ford/Bush1/Bush2 such a fuckup?" "Because he wasn't a REAL Conservative".

It's why you guys keep rewriting the history about Ronnie Reagan, who was also a fuckup, but it wasn't obvious until he leftoffice.

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing in the Constitution prevents assault weapons bans, bans on large magazines, background checks, preventing those on the no fly list from buying guns

WRONG! Nothing in the Constitution permits those things.

I'm not sure why you want to limit yourself to the thinking of slave rapists who didn't have indoor plumbing.

Why nothing in the constitution says anything about flush toilets!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

That's a new question. Your earlier question was about the Democrats goal in disarming Americans.

Speaking of which, that is one reason to vote Republican. If Hillary gets in and loads the courts with a bunch of Commie leftists, they may very well rule that we have no constitutional rights to bear arms. That would allow cities and states all across the country to ban guns, allow lawsuits to put gun manufacturers out of business, or tax ammunition so high that it's almost unaffordable.

And why would that be a bad thing?

Sure, you can vote out a President, but you can't vote out lifelong appointed judges. So the rulings of the new SC (if Hillary is elected) will last for generations and it wouldn't matter how you vote in the future.

But you see, here's the problem. The people in these cities have voted for gun bans. you gun owners only make up 22% of the population, and a lot of gun owners DON'T want crazy people to be able to buy machine guns any more than I do. So your argument is that you want to courts to prevent the people from voting restrictions that they want.

 

[Kondor3]

No, every time there is a major massacre, they try to use the poor souls to promote their political agenda.

Those poor souls families are asking why we don't do something about guns

Are they exploiting the situation too?

The "why" probably has something to do with the Constitution...

Nothing in the Constitution prevents assault weapons bans, bans on large magazines, background checks, preventing those on the no fly list from buying guns

It is the NRA that bans it

Nothing in the Constitution empowers assault weapons bans, etc., either.

It is all part of a well regulated militia

That's ONE way of spin-doctoring it.

The mileage of vast numbers of others, varies from your own.

 

[Kondor3]

Nothing in the Constitution prevents assault weapons bans, bans on large magazines, background checks, preventing those on the no fly list from buying guns

It is the NRA that bans it

The Constitution was not written to limit citizens, it was written to limit government.

Actually, it was written to constitute a government

A government deemed answer-able to and obliged to execute the Will of the People.

 

[Kondor3]

Leave the guns (including assault rifles) and magazine-clips and ammo alone.

Impose stringent vetting and possession and training and acquisition and disposal and licensing and registration standards across the entire Nation, at the Federal level.

Crucify those who deviate from those standards.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing in the Constitution prevents assault weapons bans, bans on large magazines, background checks, preventing those on the no fly list from buying guns

WRONG! Nothing in the Constitution permits those things.

Sure it does......"A well regulated militia"

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing in the Constitution prevents assault weapons bans, bans on large magazines, background checks, preventing those on the no fly list from buying guns

It is the NRA that bans it

The Constitution was not written to limit citizens, it was written to limit government.

Actually, it was written to constitute a government

A government deemed answer-able to and obliged to execute the Will of the People.

Yes...We the People constituted the Government and they are answerable to us

 

[Boss]

Yes, it's completely unreasonable to ask why our gun laws are so stupid when someone kills a shitload of people.... WITH A GUN!!!!

It was kind of like when they crashed those airplanes into a building, and some political opportunists actually used the opportunity to get tighter airline security and be more effective hunting down terrorists.

Isn't it curious we didn't have anyone calling for banning airplanes?

...Or at least, just those BIG planes... those mean ol' "commercial" airliners. Who needs a 747 capable of holding thousands of gallons of dangerous jet fuel? I don't remember all the sit-downs in congress over that debate!

 

[Boss]

Nothing in the Constitution prevents assault weapons bans, bans on large magazines, background checks, preventing those on the no fly list from buying guns

WRONG! Nothing in the Constitution permits those things.

Sure it does......"A well regulated militia"

I suggest a remedial English course.

 

[Boss]

I'm not sure why you want to limit yourself to the thinking of slave rapists who didn't have indoor plumbing.

Because... Go fuck yourself.

 

[Boss]

Except the guy wasn't a "radical Islamic terrorist. He was a gay dude who had some bad hookups on Grindr and decided to shoot the place up because he was able to get a gun too easily.

Nonsense. He pledged his act in the name of ISIS as he was committing it. Only an abject moron would try and claim he wasn't a radical terrorist perpetrating an act of radical terrorism. And easier to get than a gun-- he could have used a truck load of fertilizer and diesel fuel and killed everyone in the building as well as anyone within 50 yards of the building. It had nothing to do with what was easy to get. Like YOU... it was what was between his ears.

 

[JoeB131]

Isn't it curious we didn't have anyone calling for banning airplanes?

...Or at least, just those BIG planes... those mean ol' "commercial" airliners. Who needs a 747 capable of holding thousands of gallons of dangerous jet fuel? I don't remember all the sit-downs in congress over that debate!

Mostly because they didn't need to. All they had to do was control who could get access to them.

Now, we've TRIED doing that with guns, buy you guys keep coming back about how some slave rapist 200 year ago wanted us to have a musket, so let's not doing something sensible like ban military grade weapons from people who the government thinks are terrorists.

 

[JoeB131]

Nonsense. He pledged his act in the name of ISIS as he was committing it. Only an abject moron would try and claim he wasn't a radical terrorist perpetrating an act of radical terrorism. And easier to get than a gun-- he could have used a truck load of fertilizer and diesel fuel and killed everyone in the building as well as anyone within 50 yards of the building. It had nothing to do with what was easy to get. Like YOU... it was what was between his ears.

Well, you see, the thing is, they control the sales of fertilizer now, so we don't have those kinds of bombs being made anymore. I guess we should be glad the Founding Slave Rapists didn't mention fertilizer..

But to the point, theres no evidence that this guy was a member of ISIS, Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, all of whom he's claimed to be a member of.

 

[Boss]

Mostly because they didn't need to. All they had to do was control who could get access to them.

Now, we've TRIED doing that with guns, buy you guys keep coming back about how some slave rapist 200 year ago wanted us to have a musket, so let's not doing something sensible like ban military grade weapons from people who the government thinks are terrorists.

Well no... we already have background checks... obviously this guy must've passed. Also, being on a list has never stopped any terrorist attack that I am aware of... not that this guy was on any list.

about how some slave rapist 200 year ago wanted us to have a musket

Actually, you're wrong about that as well. The founders actually made provisions for private individuals to own gun ships with cannons which were capable of leveling an entire coastal city. They were the "WMD" of the day.

Also, they didn't "want us to have" anything.... it wasn't something granted to us by government. Our rights come from our Creator... they are endowed at birth and inalienable. If you don't LIKE our system, you are perfectly free to move somewhere else. In fact, I encourage you to do so!