Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

[orogenicman]

The founding fathers knew that sooner or later we would elect a wolf in sheep's clothing who would use our laws to open the door to government tyranny, and the second amendment was the best safeguard against that. They were right on both counts. We now have a despot in the WH and the second amendment is the only thing keeping him and his communist buddies from taking our rights away by force.

It is arguments like the above, and the fact that people like that are likely armed that makes me fear for the future of this country.

Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.

On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.

You shuld consult a psychiatrist about your unnatural fear of legally armed citizens.

`
Anyone who doesn't have a healthy fear of guns should not be allowed to own one.

 

[The Rabbi]

The founding fathers knew that sooner or later we would elect a wolf in sheep's clothing who would use our laws to open the door to government tyranny, and the second amendment was the best safeguard against that. They were right on both counts. We now have a despot in the WH and the second amendment is the only thing keeping him and his communist buddies from taking our rights away by force.

It is arguments like the above, and the fact that people like that are likely armed that makes me fear for the future of this country.

Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.

On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.

You shuld consult a psychiatrist about your unnatural fear of legally armed citizens.

`
Anyone who doesn't have a healthy fear of guns should not be allowed to own one.

I didnt say that, nudnik.
You arent afraid of guns. You are afraid of lawful gun owners. Unreasonably. See a shrink.

 

[orogenicman]

It is arguments like the above, and the fact that people like that are likely armed that makes me fear for the future of this country.

Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.

On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.

You shuld consult a psychiatrist about your unnatural fear of legally armed citizens.

`
Anyone who doesn't have a healthy fear of guns should not be allowed to own one.

I didnt say that, nudnik.
You arent afraid of guns. You are afraid of lawful gun owners. Unreasonably. See a shrink.

Repeating a false claim about me doesn't make the false claim true. See a priest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.

On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.

You shuld consult a psychiatrist about your unnatural fear of legally armed citizens.

`
Anyone who doesn't have a healthy fear of guns should not be allowed to own one.

I didnt say that, nudnik.
You arent afraid of guns. You are afraid of lawful gun owners. Unreasonably. See a shrink.

Repeating a false claim about me doesn't make the false claim true. See a priest.

Notjing false there. You claimed you were scared of armed citizens. I didnt claim that.

 

[S.J.]

The founding fathers knew that sooner or later we would elect a wolf in sheep's clothing who would use our laws to open the door to government tyranny, and the second amendment was the best safeguard against that. They were right on both counts. We now have a despot in the WH and the second amendment is the only thing keeping him and his communist buddies from taking our rights away by force.

It is arguments like the above, and the fact that people like that are likely armed that makes me fear for the future of this country.

Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.

On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.

Your idea of "the rule of law" is to strip the citizens of their ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That there are those who disagree with or don't like aspects of current Second Amendment jurisprudence doesn't meant that jurisprudence is 'wrong'; that's the nature of evolving Constitutional law: we accept that case law until such time as the Supreme Court upholds or invalidates it.

The New York Safe Act, for example, is clearly un-Constitutional, there is no rational basis to prohibit the possession of an AR 15 simply because of its magazine capacity, design, or cosmetic features. Indeed, restrictions on magazine capacity overall are un-Constitutional for the same reason; requiring a license to own or purchase a gun and registration requirements are likewise un-Constitutional.

Constitutional would be prohibiting felons and those mentally ill from possessing firearms, along with the background checks to ensure they remain prohibited persons, as well as prohibiting firearms in police stations and requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm.

 

[orogenicman]

On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.

You shuld consult a psychiatrist about your unnatural fear of legally armed citizens.

`
Anyone who doesn't have a healthy fear of guns should not be allowed to own one.

I didnt say that, nudnik.
You arent afraid of guns. You are afraid of lawful gun owners. Unreasonably. See a shrink.

Repeating a false claim about me doesn't make the false claim true. See a priest.

Notjing false there. You claimed you were scared of armed citizens. I didnt claim that.

I said that I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. If you are equating lawless gun-toting anarchists with armed citizens, that's on you.

 

[orogenicman]

The founding fathers knew that sooner or later we would elect a wolf in sheep's clothing who would use our laws to open the door to government tyranny, and the second amendment was the best safeguard against that. They were right on both counts. We now have a despot in the WH and the second amendment is the only thing keeping him and his communist buddies from taking our rights away by force.

It is arguments like the above, and the fact that people like that are likely armed that makes me fear for the future of this country.

Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.

On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.

Your idea of "the rule of law" is to strip the citizens of their ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

I believe in the rule of law. If you believe that the rule of law is tyrannical, then you are part of the problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

You shuld consult a psychiatrist about your unnatural fear of legally armed citizens.

`
Anyone who doesn't have a healthy fear of guns should not be allowed to own one.

I didnt say that, nudnik.
You arent afraid of guns. You are afraid of lawful gun owners. Unreasonably. See a shrink.

Repeating a false claim about me doesn't make the false claim true. See a priest.

Notjing false there. You claimed you were scared of armed citizens. I didnt claim that.

I said that I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. If you are equating lawless gun-toting anarchists with armed citizens, that's on you.

OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.

 

[orogenicman]

`
Anyone who doesn't have a healthy fear of guns should not be allowed to own one.

I didnt say that, nudnik.
You arent afraid of guns. You are afraid of lawful gun owners. Unreasonably. See a shrink.

Repeating a false claim about me doesn't make the false claim true. See a priest.

Notjing false there. You claimed you were scared of armed citizens. I didnt claim that.

I said that I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. If you are equating lawless gun-toting anarchists with armed citizens, that's on you.

OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.

And yet some here apparently are.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt say that, nudnik.
You arent afraid of guns. You are afraid of lawful gun owners. Unreasonably. See a shrink.

Repeating a false claim about me doesn't make the false claim true. See a priest.

Notjing false there. You claimed you were scared of armed citizens. I didnt claim that.

I said that I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. If you are equating lawless gun-toting anarchists with armed citizens, that's on you.

OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.

And yet some here apparently are.

Name them. Provide evidence.

 

[SwimExpert]

IQ tests are bogus.

Why?

Look it up.

Actually, I already know the criticisms. But I want to know if you actually know, or if you're just repeating the common misconceptions.

 

[BluesLegend]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

Wrong, good lord not another clueless gun hater...many of the arms of the day back then were quite nasty weapons and are currently illegal. You dumb ass gun haters really should avoid discussing this topic in public its embarrassing.

 

[Flash]

Because there is no arguing with NRA radicals.

There is no arguing with Libtard anti gun nuts.

Like the example in the article they are always unreasonable.

They are so unreasonable that they think a grassroots organization like the NRA that was created to assure a Constitutional right is bad. You can't reason with that kind of stupidity.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..

The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.

It continues to take a toll primarily of black and Mexican gangster lives. When has Obama ever seriously addressed the problem in Chicago, his old riding? He doesn't give a damn about black gangsters killing one another, nor do the democrats. They take the same attitude as the Mexican government regarding the cartel war along our southern border that's claimed at least 70,000 lives in six years: "Let them kill each, they're drug cartel criminals. They don't matter."

 

[orogenicman]

Repeating a false claim about me doesn't make the false claim true. See a priest.

Notjing false there. You claimed you were scared of armed citizens. I didnt claim that.

I said that I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. If you are equating lawless gun-toting anarchists with armed citizens, that's on you.

OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.

And yet some here apparently are.

Name them. Provide evidence.

Oh please, USMB is full of such people. Surely you have read their posts.

 

[orogenicman]

IQ tests are bogus.

Why?

Look it up.

Actually, I already know the criticisms. But I want to know if you actually know, or if you're just repeating the common misconceptions.

Does IQ Test Really Measure Intelligence

Dec. 20, 2012 -- Single tests that measure intelligence quotient, or IQ, may become a thing of the past.

A new study of more than 100,000 participants suggests that there may be at least three distinct components of intelligence. So you could not give a single, unified score for all of them.

Researchers' understanding of the complexities of the human brain has evolved, and so too has the notion of IQ, what it really means, and how it is most accurately captured.

“There are multiple types of intelligence,” says researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. He is a psychologist at the Brain and Mind Institute Natural Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada. “It is time to move on to using a more comprehensive set of tests that can measure separate scores for each type of intelligence.”

 

[SwimExpert]

IQ tests are bogus.

Why?

Look it up.

Actually, I already know the criticisms. But I want to know if you actually know, or if you're just repeating the common misconceptions.

Does IQ Test Really Measure Intelligence

Dec. 20, 2012 -- Single tests that measure intelligence quotient, or IQ, may become a thing of the past.

A new study of more than 100,000 participants suggests that there may be at least three distinct components of intelligence. So you could not give a single, unified score for all of them.

Researchers' understanding of the complexities of the human brain has evolved, and so too has the notion of IQ, what it really means, and how it is most accurately captured.

“There are multiple types of intelligence,” says researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. He is a psychologist at the Brain and Mind Institute Natural Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada. “It is time to move on to using a more comprehensive set of tests that can measure separate scores for each type of intelligence.”

As I suspected. You're just parroting what you heard from someone else, and don't have any actual understanding of your own.

 

[orogenicman]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

Wrong, good lord not another clueless gun hater...many of the arms of the day back then were quite nasty weapons and are currently illegal. You dumb ass gun haters really should avoid discussing this topic in public its embarrassing.

And very inaccurate, and none of them could wreak the carnage a modern legal assault rifle can do.

 

[orogenicman]

Because there is no arguing with NRA radicals.

There is no arguing with Libtard anti gun nuts.

Like the example in the article they are always unreasonable.

They are so unreasonable that they think a grassroots organization like the NRA that was created to assure a Constitutional right is bad. You can't reason with that kind of stupidity.

Yes, I do believe that the NRA is a terrible organization. And I am not alone in this assessment.