I never thought I'd see the day...

[boedicca]

I'm not going to play that game. But go ahead and replace those two terms with 'rifle' and 'ten round clip'. The rest still stands.

OK, what is your proposal to eliminate the 'problem'? Ban all semi-auto rifles?

8 of the last 10 'mass shootings' were accomplished without the use of a rifle. Would you also ban semi-auto pistols?

Please learn the difference between a clip and a magazine, you make yourself look stupid.

So, that's your issue? Terminology? Whatever, dude. You know what I meant. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. Hide behind your BS reasoning. And please go fuck yourself.

Well, that's pretty much a concession that JosefK is an idiot who has lost the argument.

Just saying.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You missed all the people going on and on about how the health insurance mandate was un-Constitutional?

It is. The Chief SCOTUS Justice had a dilemma. He opted for the path of least resistance.

He opted to uphold the law; therefore, it's Constitutional. That's the way it works.

He did not uphold anything. Roberts rendered an opinion. He opted to define ACA as a tax.
He did this to avoid further discussion of the issue.
Had he assigned ACA to "commerce" all 30 or so constitutional challenges to ACA would have moved forward.
Roberts made a technical decision. An interpretation.
I believe that Roberts took this path because he feared the Obama admin may threaten the independence of the Judicial Branch.
I cannot prove this. However, it is quite a coincidence that Roberts went this way shortly after Obama made statements in reference to the SCOTUS that NO other president had ever dared to make.
Obama Takes Aim at Supreme Court, Calls Them 'Unelected Group of People' - President Obama - Fox Nation
Obama Was Wrong to Criticize the Supreme Court - Mary Kate Cary (usnews.com)..
Obama as President HAD NO RIGHT to say these things. His statements were tantamount to a threat to the independence of the Judiciary. That is an outrage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most Americans don't give a crap about clips and magazines.

They want the proliferation of certain weapons and large magazine capacities to stop.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law is constitutional until SCOTUS says no.

It is. The Chief SCOTUS Justice had a dilemma. He opted for the path of least resistance.

He opted to uphold the law; therefore, it's Constitutional. That's the way it works.

He did not uphold anything. Roberts rendered an opinion. He opted to define ACA as a tax.
He did this to avoid further discussion of the issue.
Had he assigned ACA to "commerce" all 30 or so constitutional challenges to ACA would have moved forward.
Roberts made a technical decision. An interpretation.
I believe that Roberts took this path because he feared the Obama admin may threaten the independence of the Judicial Branch.
I cannot prove this. However, it is quite a coincidence that Roberts went this way shortly after Obama made statements in reference to the SCOTUS that NO other president had ever dared to make.
Obama Takes Aim at Supreme Court, Calls Them 'Unelected Group of People' - President Obama - Fox Nation
Obama Was Wrong to Criticize the Supreme Court - Mary Kate Cary (usnews.com)..
Obama as President HAD NO RIGHT to say these things. His statements were tantamount to a threat to the independence of the Judiciary. That is an outrage.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If it really came to it and the American people democractically desided to go and get certain guns then those people would hand them over in a red hot second with a smile and a thank you to the ATF agent.


Your right wing bluster fools NO ONE any more.

The right wing bluster is no sillier than your petty insults. But you're probably right. Most Americans today are frightened sheep, ready to do whatever they're told for fleeting promises of security.

Yeah I got called unamerican and a terrorist supporter for being against the Patriot Act.

Did that criticism really have any effect on your daily life? Move on.
BTW, I was not in support of certain provisions of the Patriot Act.
I thought the law in general was an over reaction to an otherwise scary time in our nation's history.
One issue though I could not fathom. That was certain people screaming about "phone taps" and monitoring of internet and telephone communications.
The fact is, the federal government had not with the Patriot Act, taken control of ISP's or the telcos.
The Patriot Act in theory was a good idea. However we can always count on politicians to muck up a good bill with a lot of horseshit piled into the final legislation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm not going to play that game. But go ahead and replace those two terms with 'rifle' and 'ten round clip'. The rest still stands.

OK, what is your proposal to eliminate the 'problem'? Ban all semi-auto rifles?

8 of the last 10 'mass shootings' were accomplished without the use of a rifle. Would you also ban semi-auto pistols?

Please learn the difference between a clip and a magazine, you make yourself look stupid.

So, that's your issue? Terminology? Whatever, dude. You know what I meant. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. Hide behind your BS reasoning. And please go fuck yourself.

Great response!.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

...when 20 children and 6 adults could be slaughtered by a mentally disturbed man with an assault rifle with extended clips and all people like you can think about is the gov't coming for your guns? Yeah me neither. Ah shit, who am I kidding? I knew you nutjobs would be all over this with your second amendment solutions as soon as I heard the news.

Not clips. Magazines.
The weapon had ZERO to do with the shooting. The guy could have used a .38 caliber revolver and accomplished the same effect. Dead children shot execution style.

Except that revolvers hold only 6 rounds, whereas he used 30 round clips -- oh excuse me -- magazines. So, no, the result would not have been the same.

Oh? Who was going to stop the killer from reloading? Or in his case, he had multiple weapons on his person. Including two pistols.
Most of the slaughter victims were shot several times. It did not take but one to kill. This was not a weapons issue. This was one of abject cruelty and violence.
That kid had a permanent hole in his soul. He should have been put away long ago.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most Americans don't give a crap about clips and magazines.

They want the proliferation of certain weapons and large magazine capacities to stop.

Define "proliferation"..In the context of THIS discussion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The law is constitutional until SCOTUS says no.

He opted to uphold the law; therefore, it's Constitutional. That's the way it works.

He did not uphold anything. Roberts rendered an opinion. He opted to define ACA as a tax.
He did this to avoid further discussion of the issue.
Had he assigned ACA to "commerce" all 30 or so constitutional challenges to ACA would have moved forward.
Roberts made a technical decision. An interpretation.
I believe that Roberts took this path because he feared the Obama admin may threaten the independence of the Judicial Branch.
I cannot prove this. However, it is quite a coincidence that Roberts went this way shortly after Obama made statements in reference to the SCOTUS that NO other president had ever dared to make.
Obama Takes Aim at Supreme Court, Calls Them 'Unelected Group of People' - President Obama - Fox Nation
Obama Was Wrong to Criticize the Supreme Court - Mary Kate Cary (usnews.com)..
Obama as President HAD NO RIGHT to say these things. His statements were tantamount to a threat to the independence of the Judiciary. That is an outrage.

Unfortunately correct.
We will ALL pay dearly for this mistake.

 

[boedicca]

We already are paying for it. It's a major contributor to our anemic economy and lack of job creation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody have stats, objective and concrete, for that statement, boedicca?

 

[bayoubill]

...where there were actually Americans who are against the Constitution. And, not just one, but many, many Americans who are against the Constitution.

Never did I think I would see that. Stunning.

nothing new...

go back and look at history...

there's always been groups of people who've complained about one or another of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...


fortunately, the Framers made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights fairly bullet-proof...

and we all should appreciate that and honor them, on a regular basis, for their thoughtfulness and foresight in forming those documents...

 

[J.E.D]

Not clips. Magazines.
The weapon had ZERO to do with the shooting. The guy could have used a .38 caliber revolver and accomplished the same effect. Dead children shot execution style.

Except that revolvers hold only 6 rounds, whereas he used 30 round clips -- oh excuse me -- magazines. So, no, the result would not have been the same.

Oh? Who was going to stop the killer from reloading? Or in his case, he had multiple weapons on his person. Including two pistols.
Most of the slaughter victims were shot several times. It did not take but one to kill. This was not a weapons issue. This was one of abject cruelty and violence.
That kid had a permanent hole in his soul. He should have been put away long ago.

Right. They were. By his AR-15.

 

[J.E.D]

OK, what is your proposal to eliminate the 'problem'? Ban all semi-auto rifles?

8 of the last 10 'mass shootings' were accomplished without the use of a rifle. Would you also ban semi-auto pistols?

Please learn the difference between a clip and a magazine, you make yourself look stupid.

So, that's your issue? Terminology? Whatever, dude. You know what I meant. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. Hide behind your BS reasoning. And please go fuck yourself.

Great response!.....

Shutup, cock-sleeve

 

[Samson]

Most Americans don't give a crap about clips and magazines.

They want the proliferation of certain weapons and large magazine capacities to stop.

Anybody have stats, objective and concrete, for that statement, jake?

Here lemme help:

Guns

 

[GuyPinestra]

If it really came to it and the American people democractically desided to go and get certain guns then those people would hand them over in a red hot second with a smile and a thank you to the ATF agent.


Your right wing bluster fools NO ONE any more.

The right wing bluster is no sillier than your petty insults. But you're probably right. Most Americans today are frightened sheep, ready to do whatever they're told for fleeting promises of security.

Yeah I got called unamerican and a terrorist supporter for being against the Patriot Act.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be against the Patriot Act, yet it passed the House and Senate almost UNANIMOUSLY.

What does THAT tell you?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm not going to play that game. But go ahead and replace those two terms with 'rifle' and 'ten round clip'. The rest still stands.

OK, what is your proposal to eliminate the 'problem'? Ban all semi-auto rifles?

8 of the last 10 'mass shootings' were accomplished without the use of a rifle. Would you also ban semi-auto pistols?

Please learn the difference between a clip and a magazine, you make yourself look stupid.

So, that's your issue? Terminology? Whatever, dude. You know what I meant. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. Hide behind your BS reasoning. And please go fuck yourself.

Way to go, Josef!!

You ran right past the first two statements and questions!

You want to give it another go, sport?

 

[bayoubill]

Most Americans don't give a crap about clips and magazines.

They want the proliferation of certain weapons and large magazine capacities to stop.

and then, some years down the road... long after the bans are set in place...

when the shit really hits the fan...

your grandchildren will look back and wonder "What the fuck were they thinking...?!"

 

[J.E.D]

OK, what is your proposal to eliminate the 'problem'? Ban all semi-auto rifles?

8 of the last 10 'mass shootings' were accomplished without the use of a rifle. Would you also ban semi-auto pistols?

Please learn the difference between a clip and a magazine, you make yourself look stupid.

So, that's your issue? Terminology? Whatever, dude. You know what I meant. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. Hide behind your BS reasoning. And please go fuck yourself.

Way to go, Josef!!

You ran right past the first two statements and questions!

You want to give it another go, sport?

I didn't run by anything. You chose to focus on terminology.

Now you want me to seriously answer your questions? Ok. But keep that in mind the next time you want to nitpick.

Yes, semi-auto rifles should be banned. Semi-auto pistols as well. You don't need them.

 

[ba1614]

So, that's your issue? Terminology? Whatever, dude. You know what I meant. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. Hide behind your BS reasoning. And please go fuck yourself.

Way to go, Josef!!

You ran right past the first two statements and questions!

You want to give it another go, sport?

I didn't run by anything. You chose to focus on terminology.

Now you want me to seriously answer your questions? Ok. But keep that in mind the next time you want to nitpick.

Yes, semi-auto rifles should be banned. Semi-auto pistols as well. You don't need them.

Who are you to determine what someone else "needs"? You progressives need to fuck off with that shit.