Even After Latest Attack, Liberals Refuse to Support Vehicle Control

[TheOldSchool]

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.

My firearms reason for existence is target shooting. It is a nice bonus that I can use them to defend myself and my family as well.

Yeah and my sister has a bottle of mace just to practice spraying it wildly in the air

At least put some effort WW

 

[westwall]

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.

My firearms reason for existence is target shooting. It is a nice bonus that I can use them to defend myself and my family as well.

Yeah and my sister has a bottle of mace just to practice spraying it wildly in the air

At least put some effort WW

Mace has two purposes, (well three if you like the culinary aspects of Mace) annoying bad guys and annoying dogs. Guns have MULTIPLE uses. Only extremists like you claim that they are only for killing. I have expended well over a million rounds in my life and gosh darn it I haven't managed to kill a single damned thing! Something that were we to listen to nutjobs like you, is impossible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

No doubt they are in bed with that powerful and corrupt lobby group

AAA


thanks AAA, you have blood on your hands

Yes, the OP is 100% right. Vehicle ownership and use need to be regulated even more, right along with guns.

As a fascist liberal, do you own stock in buggy whips?

Typical Starkey....he was a Kasich supporter....I laugh everytime I see him post it...but yeah we need to regulate trucks even more, they are too dangerous......anything that can cause harm to someone should be banned.....immediately!

Your candidate is a silly goof, so we are fine with that. 31000 gun deaths, 29000 vehicle deaths. Yeah, regulation makes sense. 93% of America wants it, and you are wrong.

 

[westwall]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

No doubt they are in bed with that powerful and corrupt lobby group

AAA


thanks AAA, you have blood on your hands

Yes, the OP is 100% right. Vehicle ownership and use need to be regulated even more, right along with guns.

As a fascist liberal, do you own stock in buggy whips?

Typical Starkey....he was a Kasich supporter....I laugh everytime I see him post it...but yeah we need to regulate trucks even more, they are too dangerous......anything that can cause harm to someone should be banned.....immediately!

Your candidate is a silly goof, so we are fine with that. 31000 gun deaths, 29000 vehicle deaths. Yeah, regulation makes sense. 93% of America wants it, and you are wrong.

Ahhh there you go with that disproven 93% lie. Face it propagandist, if it weren't for prevarication on a grand scale you would have nothing to say. What was it your master Goebbels had to say? "If you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one!" Something to that effect?

 

[Moonglow]

I do, why don't you try to dissuade more intelligibly?

Well I don't know your son. Maybe he's local and doesn't run into the DOT that much. Maybe he's a leftist and doesn't mind his vehicle getting pulled over or searched without probable cause or warrant. Maybe he's just lucky and doesn't get pulled over that much period.

What I can tell you is that government is responsible for higher and higher costs in transportation. Between the EPA making trucks almost unaffordable to more and more regulations and DOT cops on the road taking up our time, it's something that you and I eventually pay at the store and certainly a consideration when a company considers relocating to another country.

He works long haul, mostly in the Midwest, Eastern US and Texass........He didn't like to haul out west..I ask him about stops and he said he's never had any...except at weigh stations, and he has never been spot drug tested..and we are going to work on getting his own rig...Because he can make more dough..if they were not making money there would not be so many trucks on the road and a shortage of drivers......

 

[Moonglow]

No doubt they are in bed with that powerful and corrupt lobby group

AAA


thanks AAA, you have blood on your hands

Yes, the OP is 100% right. Vehicle ownership and use need to be regulated even more, right along with guns.

As a fascist liberal, do you own stock in buggy whips?

Typical Starkey....he was a Kasich supporter....I laugh everytime I see him post it...but yeah we need to regulate trucks even more, they are too dangerous......anything that can cause harm to someone should be banned.....immediately!

Your candidate is a silly goof, so we are fine with that. 31000 gun deaths, 29000 vehicle deaths. Yeah, regulation makes sense. 93% of America wants it, and you are wrong.

Ahhh there you go with that disproven 93% lie. Face it propagandist, if it weren't for prevarication on a grand scale you would have nothing to say. What was it your master Goebbels had to say? "If you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one!" Something to that effect?

Goebbels said to stop making people register and insure autos...and no drivers licenses either..

 

[BluesLegend]

I see this thread is mocking leftwits without mercy, carry on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WTF? There's a big difference between a vehicle and a gun. Vehicles transports our entire effin economy,,,while a goddamn gun only real focus is to KILL! Don't you understand?

No, a gun's purpose is self defense, that has always been its purpose. what you're talking about the intent of possible owners. A gun holds no blood lust of its own, and only serves as a tool. Besides, even if guns did hold a blood lust of their own, and had no use for self defense, then the government still couldn't get them out of the hands of criminals, even if the entire world banned them, because criminals don't follow the law. Even on the off chance that production was stopped entirely, determined enough criminals would build their own, then sell them on the Black Market or through the Deep Web.

Excellent reasons for regulation.

I mean, if you didn't read the post, one would come to that incorrect conclusion. I pointed out that regulations only effect those that follow the law, and actually help those that don't. The left ignore this fact because they don't want Americans legally armed.

My conclusion is correct, and yours is wrong. If we control vehicles, we can regulate guns. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see this thread is mocking leftwits without mercy, carry on.

The far right, as usual, is suffering badly from misunderstanding of the Consitution: nothing new there. They do not want to understand, unlike 93% of the rest of America, that guns can be regulated.

 

[westwall]

WTF? There's a big difference between a vehicle and a gun. Vehicles transports our entire effin economy,,,while a goddamn gun only real focus is to KILL! Don't you understand?

No, a gun's purpose is self defense, that has always been its purpose. what you're talking about the intent of possible owners. A gun holds no blood lust of its own, and only serves as a tool. Besides, even if guns did hold a blood lust of their own, and had no use for self defense, then the government still couldn't get them out of the hands of criminals, even if the entire world banned them, because criminals don't follow the law. Even on the off chance that production was stopped entirely, determined enough criminals would build their own, then sell them on the Black Market or through the Deep Web.

Excellent reasons for regulation.

I mean, if you didn't read the post, one would come to that incorrect conclusion. I pointed out that regulations only effect those that follow the law, and actually help those that don't. The left ignore this fact because they don't want Americans legally armed.

My conclusion is correct, and yours is wrong. If we control vehicles, we can regulate guns. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that.

In the Bill of Rights it certainly does. Funny how you can trot out the 1st Amendment and correctly recognize its control s on government abuses, but the very next Amendment, and the one that gives all of the others teeth, you blissfully ignore. What sort of mental gymnastics do you need to contort yourself into to get there?

 

[westwall]

I see this thread is mocking leftwits without mercy, carry on.

The far right, as usual, is suffering badly from misunderstanding of the Consitution: nothing new there. They do not want to understand, unlike 93% of the rest of America, that guns can be regulated.

That's funny. That 93% number is bullshit and yet you keep tossing it out there as if it has some sort of magical power. The facts are that it is you leftists who don't like the COTUS. You fully understand it, you just despise that it prevents you from getting all of the control you desire. Tough shit, Comrade.

 

[buckeye45_73]

WTF? There's a big difference between a vehicle and a gun. Vehicles transports our entire effin economy,,,while a goddamn gun only real focus is to KILL! Don't you understand?

No, a gun's purpose is self defense, that has always been its purpose. what you're talking about the intent of possible owners. A gun holds no blood lust of its own, and only serves as a tool. Besides, even if guns did hold a blood lust of their own, and had no use for self defense, then the government still couldn't get them out of the hands of criminals, even if the entire world banned them, because criminals don't follow the law. Even on the off chance that production was stopped entirely, determined enough criminals would build their own, then sell them on the Black Market or through the Deep Web.

Excellent reasons for regulation.

I mean, if you didn't read the post, one would come to that incorrect conclusion. I pointed out that regulations only effect those that follow the law, and actually help those that don't. The left ignore this fact because they don't want Americans legally armed.

My conclusion is correct, and yours is wrong. If we control vehicles, we can regulate guns. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that.

Wow Jakey using himself as a source isn't that every post he does......try adding content to the discussion instead of zero.....Cars are not in the constitution, guns are, suck on it, love it......and go regulate your posts by adding something.....not just your bullshit opinion.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, the OP is 100% right. Vehicle ownership and use need to be regulated even more, right along with guns.

As a fascist liberal, do you own stock in buggy whips?

Typical Starkey....he was a Kasich supporter....I laugh everytime I see him post it...but yeah we need to regulate trucks even more, they are too dangerous......anything that can cause harm to someone should be banned.....immediately!

Your candidate is a silly goof, so we are fine with that. 31000 gun deaths, 29000 vehicle deaths. Yeah, regulation makes sense. 93% of America wants it, and you are wrong.

Ahhh there you go with that disproven 93% lie. Face it propagandist, if it weren't for prevarication on a grand scale you would have nothing to say. What was it your master Goebbels had to say? "If you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one!" Something to that effect?

Goebbels said to stop making people register and insure autos...and no drivers licenses either..

REally where is that link? Goebbels stopped registering people? Uhhhhh, I think you're high....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Westwall cannot prove that 93% does not approve gun regulations, when it fact the percentage is solid.

Westwall does not understand the Constitution's 2d Amendment or the jurisprudence supporting appropriate regulation.

So Westwall, the propagandist, calls me a propagandist.

The fact is that guns have been regulated in the past and such has been sustained by SCOTUS.

I agree with the far right that regulation of vehicles and guns needs to increase.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I see this thread is mocking leftwits without mercy, carry on.

The far right, as usual, is suffering badly from misunderstanding of the Consitution: nothing new there. They do not want to understand, unlike 93% of the rest of America, that guns can be regulated.

That's funny. That 93% number is bullshit and yet you keep tossing it out there as if it has some sort of magical power. The facts are that it is you leftists who don't like the COTUS. You fully understand it, you just despise that it prevents you from getting all of the control you desire. Tough shit, Comrade.

yeah where is his source for that number? Other than up his ass.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Westwall cannot prove that 93% does not approve gun regulations, when it fact the percentage is solid.

Westwall does not understand the Constitution's 2d Amendment or the jurisprudence supporting appropriate regulation.

So Westwall, the propagandist, calls me a propagandist.

The fact is that guns have been regulated in the past and such has been sustained by SCOTUS.

I agree with the far right that regulation of vehicles and guns needs to increase.

You cant prove a negative...prove you're not gay.....yeah Jake you are so dishonest....

where is the source for that number?

 

[JakeStarkey]

WTF? There's a big difference between a vehicle and a gun. Vehicles transports our entire effin economy,,,while a goddamn gun only real focus is to KILL! Don't you understand?

No, a gun's purpose is self defense, that has always been its purpose. what you're talking about the intent of possible owners. A gun holds no blood lust of its own, and only serves as a tool. Besides, even if guns did hold a blood lust of their own, and had no use for self defense, then the government still couldn't get them out of the hands of criminals, even if the entire world banned them, because criminals don't follow the law. Even on the off chance that production was stopped entirely, determined enough criminals would build their own, then sell them on the Black Market or through the Deep Web.

Excellent reasons for regulation.

I mean, if you didn't read the post, one would come to that incorrect conclusion. I pointed out that regulations only effect those that follow the law, and actually help those that don't. The left ignore this fact because they don't want Americans legally armed.

My conclusion is correct, and yours is wrong. If we control vehicles, we can regulate guns. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that.

Wow Jakey using himself as a source isn't that every post he does......try adding content to the discussion instead of zero.....Cars are not in the constitution, guns are, suck on it, love it......and go regulate your posts by adding something.....not just your bullshit opinion.

The sillies on the far right self cite themselves all the time, , so I am not too concerned with the criticism. The Constitution and SCOTUS certainly permits gun regulation.. It has happened in the past and will in the future. The number is a reasonable man standard supported by common knowledge.

 

[Moonglow]

Even in old west towns open carry was not allowed everywhere..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Try to buy a car these days, and the salesman will be forced to file a government IFO to make sure you are not on a watch list.

And those who oppose the same for guns and watch lists are the allies of radical jihadism.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Try to buy a car these days, and the salesman will be forced to file a government IFO to make sure you are not on a watch list.

And those who oppose the same for guns and watch lists are the allies of radical jihadism.

How many times do we need to ask for your source on that 93% number?