Attention, gun control supporters:

[zeke]

Sure bigrebbie.

Remeber when we got the call up for Washington's army? We were told to bring our guns and ammo, cause Washington didn't have the guns and ammo for the citizen soldiers being called up.

Remember? We laughed that we had to supply our own guns to kill the British. Then we heard about the Constituation being written. And we knew that having our own guns would be important because without us having our own guns and ammo, if the militia was called up again, we would have been weaponless if we didn't take our own.

Wasn't it nice that the framers were thinking this through.

And how did the Congress of old know that we would never have a standing army and would never have the ability to give arms to those in the standing army. How did they know that we would always be calling up the militia and have to bring our personal weapons to the call up.

How did they know all this back in the 17 hundreds? And how is it that you seem to know all this stuff in 2012.

Are you a time traveler? Or just making shit up about what you believe happened?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure bigrebbie.

Remeber when we got the call up for Washington's army? We were told to bring our guns and ammo, cause Washington didn't have the guns and ammo for the citizen soldiers being called up.

Remember? We laughed that we had to supply our own guns to kill the British. Then we heard about the Constituation being written. And we knew that having our own guns would be important because without us having our own guns and ammo, if the militia was called up again, we would have been weaponless if we didn't take our own.

Wasn't it nice that the framers were thinking this through.

And how did the Congress of old know that we would never have a standing army and would never have the ability to give arms to those in the standing army. How did they know that we would always be calling up the militia and have to bring our personal weapons to the call up.

How did they know all this back in the 17 hundreds? And how is it that you seem to know all this stuff in 2012.

Are you a time traveler? Or just making shit up about what you believe happened?

Tyranny never changes just the faces, that's why they set the right to keep and bear arms in stone when they ended the second amendment with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have asked you more than once and you refuse to answer my question. So, that tells me your answer is: YOU vehemently oppose laws and regulations that prevent guns being legally sold to people who don't have to pass a background check.

I'm sure he answered.
I vehemently oppose it. Happy now, scooter?

No, he didn't answer it. But I'm not surprised that you believe any scum bag criminal should be able to buy a gun LEGALLY.

Currently they buy them illegally. What's the difference?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Dammit we are talking about privately owned machines that are designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. To be specific, why don't we authenticate this debate by focusing on weapons similar to or like the one used in the elementary school massacre.

Any semi-automatic pistol or rifle can be converted to full automatic with a little expertise, a kit and hard work, Older model rifles like the M1 or M14 are easier to convert than modern weapons. Pistols are not the weapon of choice for conversion to full automatic.

All of this talk about cars, baseball bats and knives as assault weapons is nonsense since none of those items was specifically designed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction like a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon is. A semi automatic weapon in the hands of an experienced gamer who decides to practice on real people or a disgruntled marksman tea bagger could be fired as fast as he/she could pull the trigger; and with a great deal more accuracy than someone trying to use a fully automatic weapon.

All your whining doesn't change the FACT that the Constitution GUARANTEES my RIGHT to own firearms, and all your whining won't change the FACT that you gun grabbers aren't going to win.

It's pansy-asses like you that would want to ban firearms and then send SOMEBODY ELSE to go TRY to round them up.

Chickenshit bitch.

Try to take 'em, it won't be EASY...

You are exactly the kind of high strung nut I wouldn't want having a weapon of any kind. Just read what you wrote and ask your self if you sound rational. You are already threatening violence if anyone tries to take your guns. Ya know fellow, your response here is clear evidence that you have a screw loose. I hope you don't kill a lot of innocent people someday....

You are exactly the kind of ignorant liberal fool that wants to legislate by emotion and not use ANY higher order thinking skills. You think passing some 'feel good' gun ban is somehow going to magically eliminate tragedies like Sandy Hook.

You. Are. Wrong.

You also seem to think that there is something wrong with a person who threatens violence if their Constitutional rights are violated. If you're not willing to stand up and fight for your rights, you're not worthy of the appellation 'American'. I seem to remember a bunch of guys 236 years ago who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to that fight, and to each other.

I intend to honor that contract, even if a coward like you won't.

Maybe you should move to France?

 

[GuyPinestra]

The Founding fathers also intended to have the ability for their descendents to continue to rape their slaves just like Tommy Jefferson did to Sally Hemmings...

They also thought bleeding people to death was a totally valid sort of medical treatment, which is how they treated Geo. Washington's strep throat (and killed him.)

So instead of wanting to respect the wishes of 200 year old dead slave-rapists, maybe we should look at the rational of why private citizens should own guns today?

To Hunt- Well, kind of a sadistic hobby, but some people still do it.

To protect their homes? A gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of a household than a bad guy.

To overthrow the mean old government because they want to raise the taxes to pay for services you demanded? sorry, the government has tanks, fighter planes and nukes. That's not going to end well.

gun grabbers always equate guns with dicks or some kind of sexual deviant behavior what is up with these sick minded people.

Now, why did you avoid the point? These guys were not moral paragons. They were flawed 18th barbarians who built a country on slavery and genocide.

Yet you want to treat the bad syntax of the 2nd Amendment as the end of the discussion, even though the courts for most of history have held it allows limits on private gun ownership.

You really are an ignorant motherfucker, Joe.

Somehow you take the accepted social norms of the age and project evil intent onto the men who worked the hardest to CHANGE them.

Dishonest, race-baiting hack...

 

[JQPublic1]

All your whining doesn't change the FACT that the Constitution GUARANTEES my RIGHT to own firearms, and all your whining won't change the FACT that you gun grabbers aren't going to win.

It's pansy-asses like you that would want to ban firearms and then send SOMEBODY ELSE to go TRY to round them up.

Chickenshit bitch.

Try to take 'em, it won't be EASY...

You are exactly the kind of high strung nut I wouldn't want having a weapon of any kind. Just read what you wrote and ask your self if you sound rational. You are already threatening violence if anyone tries to take your guns. Ya know fellow, your response here is clear evidence that you have a screw loose. I hope you don't kill a lot of innocent people someday....

You are exactly the kind of ignorant liberal fool that wants to legislate by emotion and not use ANY higher order thinking skills. You think passing some 'feel good' gun ban is somehow going to magically eliminate tragedies like Sandy Hook.

You. Are. Wrong.

You also seem to think that there is something wrong with a person who threatens violence if their Constitutional rights are violated. If you're not willing to stand up and fight for your rights, you're not worthy of the appellation 'American'. I seem to remember a bunch of guys 236 years ago who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to that fight, and to each other.

I intend to honor that contract, even if a coward like you won't.

Maybe you should move to France?

I served in the army for 20 years and I probably saw more combat in a day than you will in your lifetime. Have you ever served? I paid my dues in blood. I am no coward. And I am definitely an American. Cowards hide behind guns because they are too weak or afraid to face a man in close quarters hand to hand combat. I get a rush out o forcing an opponent into submission with my bare hands... the bigger the better.

I have guns to protect myself from idiots like you. I am forced to have semi automatic guns because people like YOU have them. I won't take the chance that when someday I will be expressing my political views in a bar or at the local grocery store some spineless nutcase like you, who thinks he has the only gun in town, will try to silence me. When he goes for his, I will go for mine and may the best man win!

The framers of the constitution did give us the right to bear arms but I doubt if they envisioned the semi-automatic rifles fitted with high capacity magazines of today. I have no problem with you having a musket or even a bolt action rifle or shotgun. But when you want to own a fully operational automatic or semi-automatic super killing machine that was designed specifically for that purpose, you shouldn't be allowed to. But since you are...I must have equal force at my disposal!

Another thing. You should stop living in the past. Your puny rifles would be as ineffectual as
a bow and arrow against tanks, drones and bombs...even on fully automatic! IDIOT

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm sure he answered.
I vehemently oppose it. Happy now, scooter?

No, he didn't answer it. But I'm not surprised that you believe any scum bag criminal should be able to buy a gun LEGALLY.

Currently they buy them illegally. What's the difference?

No, they can currently buy them illegally and LEGALLY. If they could only buy them illegally, and they were banned, then just the POSSESSION of them would be a crime.

And if they could only be bought illegally, the price would become much more prohibitive.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You are exactly the kind of ignorant liberal fool that wants to legislate by emotion and not use ANY higher order thinking skills. You think passing some 'feel good' gun ban is somehow going to magically eliminate tragedies like Sandy Hook.

You. Are. Wrong.

You also seem to think that there is something wrong with a person who threatens violence if their Constitutional rights are violated. If you're not willing to stand up and fight for your rights, you're not worthy of the appellation 'American'. I seem to remember a bunch of guys 236 years ago who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to that fight, and to each other.

I intend to honor that contract, even if a coward like you won't.

Maybe you should move to France?

I served in the army for 20 years and I probably saw more combat in a day than you will in your lifetime. Have you ever served? I paid my dues in blood. I am no coward. And I am definitely an American. Cowards hide behind guns because they are too weak or afraid to face a man in close quarters hand to hand combat. I get a rush out o forcing an opponent into submission with my bare hands... the bigger the better.

Proving that between the two of us YOU are the psychopathic nutbag.

I have guns to protect myself from idiots like you. I am forced to have semi automatic guns because people like YOU have them. I won't take the chance that when someday I will be expressing my political views in a bar or at the local grocery store some spineless nutcase like you, who thinks he has the only gun in town, will try to silence me. When he goes for his, I will go for mine and may the best man win!

I don't want "the only gun in town", idiot. "An armed society is a polite society."
I don't want to silence you, either. It's too much fun ridiculing your stupidity.

The framers of the constitution did give us the right to bear arms but I doubt if they envisioned the semi-automatic rifles fitted with high capacity magazines of today. I have no problem with you having a musket or even a bolt action rifle or shotgun. But when you want to own a fully operational automatic or semi-automatic super killing machine that was designed specifically for that purpose, you shouldn't be allowed to. But since you are...I must have equal force at my disposal!

What they 'envisioned' was that the people should have weapons commensurate to the state. I own semi-automatic weapons to protect myself and my family from criminals, and because they are fun to shoot. I'm not the guy you need to worry about shooting up schools, theaters and streets, fool.

Another thing. You should stop living in the past. Your puny rifles would be as ineffectual as
a bow and arrow against tanks, drones and bombs...even on fully automatic! IDIOT

Really? How's that working out in Afghanistan?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are exactly the kind of high strung nut I wouldn't want having a weapon of any kind. Just read what you wrote and ask your self if you sound rational. You are already threatening violence if anyone tries to take your guns. Ya know fellow, your response here is clear evidence that you have a screw loose. I hope you don't kill a lot of innocent people someday....

You are exactly the kind of ignorant liberal fool that wants to legislate by emotion and not use ANY higher order thinking skills. You think passing some 'feel good' gun ban is somehow going to magically eliminate tragedies like Sandy Hook.

You. Are. Wrong.

You also seem to think that there is something wrong with a person who threatens violence if their Constitutional rights are violated. If you're not willing to stand up and fight for your rights, you're not worthy of the appellation 'American'. I seem to remember a bunch of guys 236 years ago who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to that fight, and to each other.

I intend to honor that contract, even if a coward like you won't.

Maybe you should move to France?

I served in the army for 20 years and I probably saw more combat in a day than you will in your lifetime. Have you ever served? I paid my dues in blood. I am no coward. And I am definitely an American. Cowards hide behind guns because they are too weak or afraid to face a man in close quarters hand to hand combat. I get a rush out o forcing an opponent into submission with my bare hands... the bigger the better.

I have guns to protect myself from idiots like you. I am forced to have semi automatic guns because people like YOU have them. I won't take the chance that when someday I will be expressing my political views in a bar or at the local grocery store some spineless nutcase like you, who thinks he has the only gun in town, will try to silence me. When he goes for his, I will go for mine and may the best man win!

The framers of the constitution did give us the right to bear arms but I doubt if they envisioned the semi-automatic rifles fitted with high capacity magazines of today. I have no problem with you having a musket or even a bolt action rifle or shotgun. But when you want to own a fully operational automatic or semi-automatic super killing machine that was designed specifically for that purpose, you shouldn't be allowed to. But since you are...I must have equal force at my disposal!

Another thing. You should stop living in the past. Your puny rifles would be as ineffectual as
a bow and arrow against tanks, drones and bombs...even on fully automatic! IDIOT

OH you served? What branch? MOS or AFSC? WHAT YEARS? You saw combat? Interesting.

The framers of the constitution did give us the right to bear arms but I doubt if they envisioned the semi-automatic rifles fitted with high capacity magazines of today.

The founders didn't have to envision what types of futuristic weapon were coming to have the view that the people in order to maintain an effective militia would have those weapons available to them. The founders also did not want a full time army

 

[JoeB131]

gun grabbers always equate guns with dicks or some kind of sexual deviant behavior what is up with these sick minded people.

Now, why did you avoid the point? These guys were not moral paragons. They were flawed 18th barbarians who built a country on slavery and genocide.

Yet you want to treat the bad syntax of the 2nd Amendment as the end of the discussion, even though the courts for most of history have held it allows limits on private gun ownership.

You really are an ignorant motherfucker, Joe.

Somehow you take the accepted social norms of the age and project evil intent onto the men who worked the hardest to CHANGE them.

Dishonest, race-baiting hack...

The founding fathers did nothing of the sort. They talked a lot of shit about "All Men are Created Equal", but then they entrenched slavery into the constitution by establishing slavery as a legal device in the constitution.

And, yes, Thomas Jefferson was a bad person when he had a relationship with a 16 year old Sally Hemmings because she had the bad luck to be his property and resemble his ex-wife. (Hemmings, who was 3/4 White, was the biological daughter of Jefferson's father in law.)

So please excuse me that I don't consider these guys to have intents so noble that we should use their bad syntax in the 2nd Amendment to be an excuse for crazy people to buy miltiary grade weapons...

 

[The Rabbi]

No, he didn't answer it. But I'm not surprised that you believe any scum bag criminal should be able to buy a gun LEGALLY.

Currently they buy them illegally. What's the difference?

No, they can currently buy them illegally and LEGALLY. If they could only buy them illegally, and they were banned, then just the POSSESSION of them would be a crime.

And if they could only be bought illegally, the price would become much more prohibitive.

Wow, you don't know very much, do you? If they are prohibited, they are prohibited. Any purchase is already illegal. If they are caught, they go to jail.
HOw do felons legally buy guns? This ought to be good.

 

[SayMyName]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?

You can't. That is why they are criminals. Evenso, after the latest massacre, it is long overdue to get this situation under control.

 

[The Rabbi]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?

You can't. That is why they are criminals. Evenso, after the latest massacre, it is long overdue to get this situation under control.

Which situation is that?

 

[jtpr312]

Raise the stakes. If a criminal (or anyone else) is caught with an assault weapon, make the penalty death.

You and people like you are the reason I will never support any type of gun ban in this nation. Seig Heil scumbag

Lucky for us you're a fringe shit stain.

You being a pos would know all about those kind of stains scrote, they're what you leave behind every time you touch something.

 

[Bfgrn]

Currently they buy them illegally. What's the difference?

No, they can currently buy them illegally and LEGALLY. If they could only buy them illegally, and they were banned, then just the POSSESSION of them would be a crime.

And if they could only be bought illegally, the price would become much more prohibitive.

If they are prohibited, they are prohibited. Any purchase is already illegal. If they are caught, they go to jail.

EXACTLY...law enforcement won't have to wait until you USE it illegally.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Now, why did you avoid the point? These guys were not moral paragons. They were flawed 18th barbarians who built a country on slavery and genocide.

Yet you want to treat the bad syntax of the 2nd Amendment as the end of the discussion, even though the courts for most of history have held it allows limits on private gun ownership.

You really are an ignorant motherfucker, Joe.

Somehow you take the accepted social norms of the age and project evil intent onto the men who worked the hardest to CHANGE them.

Dishonest, race-baiting hack...

The founding fathers did nothing of the sort. They talked a lot of shit about "All Men are Created Equal", but then they entrenched slavery into the constitution by establishing slavery as a legal device in the constitution.

And, yes, Thomas Jefferson was a bad person when he had a relationship with a 16 year old Sally Hemmings because she had the bad luck to be his property and resemble his ex-wife. (Hemmings, who was 3/4 White, was the biological daughter of Jefferson's father in law.)

So please excuse me that I don't consider these guys to have intents so noble that we should use their bad syntax in the 2nd Amendment to be an excuse for crazy people to buy miltiary grade weapons...

Slavery was ALREADY entrenched PRIOR to the Founding, and yet it was argued AGAINST by MOST of the Founders.

The 3/5 Clause, which you ignorant race-baiters try to use as proof that the Founders were EVIL, was in fact a means of WEAKENING the power of the slave-holding states in Congress.

16 year olds were commonly married at that time, Joe. They weren't considered 'children'. Read a history book or something.

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery was ALREADY entrenched PRIOR to the Founding, and yet it was argued AGAINST by MOST of the Founders.

The 3/5 Clause, which you ignorant race-baiters try to use as proof that the Founders were EVIL, was in fact a means of WEAKENING the power of the slave-holding states in Congress.

16 year olds were commonly married at that time, Joe. They weren't considered 'children'. Read a history book or something.

The point was she wasn't "married". She was giving in to demands for sex from a man who had the legal right to whip her or sell her at any time he wanted to.

And yes, the 3/5th clause was part of that kind of thinking. Representation was based on how many people you had, so lets' count the slaves as less. You see the problem there? It took a civil war and three amendments to fix the problem. And we're STILL working on it.

 

[daveman]

Rifles are not WMD. That is an absolutely ludicrous statement, and completely shreds whatever claim to credibility you might once have had.

Fortunately for me, you are not the sole arbiter of what is or is not credible. I think my definition aptly describes the carnage done to the kids and teachers at the elementary school massacre. Only a fool or a madman would define it otherwise! BTW, you need to cut down on your posts, they are far too large for a forum like this.

You are not the sole arbiter of what is or is not too large.

Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns
Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.379
Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.380
Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.381yt

No, it is NOT a myth. BTW, according to you, an assault weapon already is a machine gun. No conversion would be necessary. When you desperately copy stuff from the INTERNET you are bound to echo the inaccuracies of some other nut with an agenda.
I passed over that website during my own research and google search included actual YOUTUBE videos of people actually showing you how to make those conversions. Any one interested can find it...I won't bother since you already ignored it!

How do you know I ignored it?

Hint: You don't.

Is it too much to ask that leftists stick with the established definitions of words, and not their hyperemotional, fear-mongering definitions?

Definitions are not set in stone, But whatever definition you choose to use to describe the multiple deaths caused by a single individual with a semi automatic rifle, it all comes down to the same thing. Private citizens should not have that capability regardless of their perceived "responsibility." Anyone can snap at any given time! Even YOU!

So, you think your emotionally-driven definitions take precedence over government, legal, and military definitions?

Do you know any reason I shouldn't laugh in your face right now?

Me neither.

 

[daveman]

No law is or will ever be perfect. But you are avoiding my question. Where do you think many private sellers get these weapons. And there is no risk having a trunk full of assault weapons upon a traffic stop that turns into a vehicle search, if you were able to buy them legally, now is there???

If they were banned, there is NO legal means of buying one, only illegal. So if you have one in your trunk or twenty...spread 'em, place your hands on the hood...you have the right to remain...

So, you have nothing to back up your claims. Just emotion. That's all.

Not at all surprising.

I have asked you more than once and you refuse to answer my question. So, that tells me your answer is: YOU vehemently oppose laws and regulations that prevent guns being legally sold to people who don't have to pass a background check.

Say I sell a rifle to my nephew. How am I going to perform a background check on him?

Oh, yes -- more government is your answer.

Meanwhile, gun bans don't work. That's simply the reality.

 

[daveman]

[
Let's examine this.

Your views are:

1. "Obviously criminals do not obey the law..."

2. You want more gun restriction laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Would you please explain the painfully obvious dichotomy here?

If there are no guns available, criminals won't be able to get them.

That's kind of the point.

There is a nationwide ban on cocaine, meth, heroin, and LSD.

Oddly enough, criminals are able to get them.

So what makes you think criminals won't be able to get guns?

Take your time. I can tell all you have is emotion, not facts or logic.