Joeb131's real reason for bveing against firearms.

[daveman]

Yawn, guy, you are the ones who want to tell them that they can't have abortions, can't have birth control, and if they insist on regulating their own bodies, you call them nasty names.

1. I don't support abortion, true.

2. Birth control? Where have I ever said women can't have birth control? Hint: Nowhere. So don't bother looking -- not that you were going to. You NEVER prove your claims.

3. Same with #2. No proof, and no chance of you looking for it.

So, it looks like you're batting .333.

Of course, that's WAY better than usual. Loser.

Yawn, guy you say shit and you deny it.

I'd ask you to prove where I said it, but you're a weasel with no integrity.

So here and now, will you condemn Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a Slut, and call for him to be removed from the airwaves.

We're waiting for you to show integrity, Davy...

I'm under no obligation to follow your retarded demands. And you of all people have no cause to be lecturing about integrity, Mr. "I Don't Have To Prove My Claims".

Unlike you, you commie bastard, I support the First Amendment...and that includes people saying things I disagree with or find repugnant.

Because that's one of the things that makes America great. And it's one of the things you would take away if you could. You damned progressives are TERRIFIED of conflicting views, and seek to silence them.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Unlike you, you commie bastard, I support the First Amendment...and that includes people saying things I disagree with or find repugnant.

Because that's one of the things that makes America great. And it's one of the things you would take away if you could. You damned progressives are TERRIFIED of conflicting views, and seek to silence them.

So you are all for Rush LImbaugh calling women vile names if he disagrees with them and doesn't understand the point they were trying to make.

Limbaugh apparently also thinks the amount of birth control you need to take is contingent upon the amount of sex you have, which makes me wonder how much he understands about female sexuality after four Sham Marriages.

The first Amendment would ONLY apply to CONGRESS trying to shut Limbaugh up. It puts you under no obligation to agree with him or not denounce his repulsive ramblings.

So one more time, Dave, do you condemn Limbaugh and think he should be taken off the air, or do you agree with his characterization of Ms. Fluke.

 

[daveman]

[

Unlike you, you commie bastard, I support the First Amendment...and that includes people saying things I disagree with or find repugnant.

Because that's one of the things that makes America great. And it's one of the things you would take away if you could. You damned progressives are TERRIFIED of conflicting views, and seek to silence them.

So you are all for Rush LImbaugh calling women vile names if he disagrees with them and doesn't understand the point they were trying to make.

Limbaugh apparently also thinks the amount of birth control you need to take is contingent upon the amount of sex you have, which makes me wonder how much he understands about female sexuality after four Sham Marriages.

The first Amendment would ONLY apply to CONGRESS trying to shut Limbaugh up. It puts you under no obligation to agree with him or not denounce his repulsive ramblings.

So one more time, Dave, do you condemn Limbaugh and think he should be taken off the air, or do you agree with his characterization of Ms. Fluke.

Ridiculous question. I condemn the prog retards at MSNBC for their lies and lunacy all the time -- especially since I'm one of the conservatives they routinely slander -- but I have NEVER called for them to be taken off the air.

You simply and utterly fail to understand freedom. That's probably why you hate it so much.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you need a gun to make yourself feel like a "man", I think you are the one dealing with gland issues...

Joe you are dealing with issues stemming from your time in the "rear" (no pun intended).

You supply fucks never measured up and it has followed you to this day.

I've got a box full of medals that says otherwise...

But that's besides the point.

I'll admit, I don't have the OP's fine record, which seems to include taking Geoden and Celexa to control his "paranoid delusions". But he'll insist that he totally needs a gun because the founding slave rapists said so.

I have spent 55 years with total access to firearms and NEVER shot anyone, never threatened anyone, never did anything illegal. Exactly why should I lose my right to bear arms again?

I am exactly the type of person that deserves access to lawful firearms.

Wanna know a secret? What my delusional world is?

I believe that society will collapse. I am armed to protect those that survive that collapse. Not just my family but everyone I find or comes to me for help.

I have spent 38 years teaching myself to help others. To be prepared if I am ever called on to offer my services to my community.

Federal law is clear, unless a competent authority ( a judge) has ruled you incompetent you do not lose your right to bear arms. I have violated no law that restricts weapons ownership and have never been judged incompetent.

Go ahead dumb ass explain again why you think I should lose my weapons.

 

[skookerasbil]

New study released by Harvard.........


more guns = less crimes


Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.

Having a society with more guns appears to not only reduce violent crime and keep citizens safe, but also dissuades dangerous criminals from wanting to approach people with guns. According to the study, three out of five polled felons say that they won't mess with an armed victim.



Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?



Talk about a finger in the eye of the fascists who want to ban guns

 

[JoeB131]

I have spent 55 years with total access to firearms and NEVER shot anyone, never threatened anyone, never did anything illegal. Exactly why should I lose my right to bear arms again?

I am exactly the type of person that deserves access to lawful firearms.

Wanna know a secret? What my delusional world is?

I believe that society will collapse. I am armed to protect those that survive that collapse. Not just my family but everyone I find or comes to me for help.

I have spent 38 years teaching myself to help others. To be prepared if I am ever called on to offer my services to my community.

Federal law is clear, unless a competent authority ( a judge) has ruled you incompetent you do not lose your right to bear arms. I have violated no law that restricts weapons ownership and have never been judged incompetent.

Go ahead dumb ass explain again why you think I should lose my weapons.

Yeah, that's pretty delusional. Again, by your own admission on another thread, you take two drugs to keep your "Paranoid Delusions" in check, and frankly, given some of what you post here, I have to truly wonder if these drugs are working all that well.

If someone hasn't taken away your guns, then guns are too easy to get. They were too easy for Joker Holmes to get. They were too easy for Jared Loughner to get. they were too easy for Cho and Hasan and Lanza and just about every other nutbag to get.

Which is the whole problem with thinking of guns as a "right". They aren't a right, they are a privilage, and it's a privilage that should be tightly controlled, which is how every other industrial democracy does it.

 

[mudwhistle]

And where did you serve? What was your MOS?

11B1V, many places pops.

Here is the flaw in your lie, nobody brags about their medals Joe...except those who don't actually have any......much like chicks.....if you really are getting them you don't have to talk about it.

Yeah, so that's why you talk about your guns all the time?

Hmmmm... sounds like someone got his confiscated.

11B1V- so you never made it past E-4? That's kind of sad.

I was a 76Y30- Made it all the way to E-6.

Wow, E-6.

On my team the E-6s always had to take out the trash can.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Wow, E-6.

On my team the E-6s always had to take out the trash can.

Uh-huh. So you decided, "Hey, you've earned five promotions and went to several NCO schools, take out the trash, bitch."

Kind of funny, but I expect as much from a guy who makes all his money sponging off government and then complains about the government.

 

[mudwhistle]

[

Wow, E-6.

On my team the E-6s always had to take out the trash can.

Uh-huh. So you decided, "Hey, you've earned five promotions and went to several NCO schools, take out the trash, bitch."

Kind of funny, but I expect as much from a guy who makes all his money sponging off government and then complains about the government.

I've gotten rid of all of my Section 8s.

Happy now?

Hater.

Btw, my point was that E-6 is nothing to brag about.

 

[daveman]

I have spent 55 years with total access to firearms and NEVER shot anyone, never threatened anyone, never did anything illegal. Exactly why should I lose my right to bear arms again?

I am exactly the type of person that deserves access to lawful firearms.

Wanna know a secret? What my delusional world is?

I believe that society will collapse. I am armed to protect those that survive that collapse. Not just my family but everyone I find or comes to me for help.

I have spent 38 years teaching myself to help others. To be prepared if I am ever called on to offer my services to my community.

Federal law is clear, unless a competent authority ( a judge) has ruled you incompetent you do not lose your right to bear arms. I have violated no law that restricts weapons ownership and have never been judged incompetent.

Go ahead dumb ass explain again why you think I should lose my weapons.

Yeah, that's pretty delusional. Again, by your own admission on another thread, you take two drugs to keep your "Paranoid Delusions" in check, and frankly, given some of what you post here, I have to truly wonder if these drugs are working all that well.

If someone hasn't taken away your guns, then guns are too easy to get. They were too easy for Joker Holmes to get. They were too easy for Jared Loughner to get. they were too easy for Cho and Hasan and Lanza and just about every other nutbag to get.

Which is the whole problem with thinking of guns as a "right". They aren't a right, they are a privilage, and it's a privilage that should be tightly controlled, which is how every other industrial democracy does it.

Then instead of whining like a little bitch on the internet and expecting someone else to do the work for you, get off your ass and work to change the Constitution in the prescribed manner.

Because that's the only way what you want is going to happen. If you try to do it legislatively, it'll be overturned -- guaranteed -- and you'll just sit around on your ass whining like a little bitch about it.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Then instead of whining like a little bitch on the internet and expecting someone else to do the work for you, get off your ass and work to change the Constitution in the prescribed manner.

Because that's the only way what you want is going to happen. If you try to do it legislatively, it'll be overturned -- guaranteed -- and you'll just sit around on your ass whining like a little bitch about it.

Actually, the only thing between sensible gun control and the bizarro world interpretation of gun ownership as an individual right is one septegenarian justice.

Scalia keels over, Obama appoints his replacement. SCOTUS finds that part in the Second Amendment about "Well-Regulated Militias" again.

Frankly, we should probably have a constititional convention and rewrite the entire thing for the 21st century, but we know we won't do that.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I've gotten rid of all of my Section 8s.

Happy now?

Hater.

Btw, my point was that E-6 is nothing to brag about.

Other than the fact that 90% of those who enlist never reach that rank...

but that isn't what it's about, and you know it.

It's about your inability to argue your point, and going for the personal attack.

 

[daveman]

[
Then instead of whining like a little bitch on the internet and expecting someone else to do the work for you, get off your ass and work to change the Constitution in the prescribed manner.

Because that's the only way what you want is going to happen. If you try to do it legislatively, it'll be overturned -- guaranteed -- and you'll just sit around on your ass whining like a little bitch about it.

Actually, the only thing between sensible gun control and the bizarro world interpretation of gun ownership as an individual right is one septegenarian justice.

Scalia keels over, Obama appoints his replacement. SCOTUS finds that part in the Second Amendment about "Well-Regulated Militias" again.

Frankly, we should probably have a constititional convention and rewrite the entire thing for the 21st century, but we know we won't do that.

The Constitution is just fine.

Only-freedom-loathing, America-hating progs think it needs to be rewritten.

 

[007]

[
Then instead of whining like a little bitch on the internet and expecting someone else to do the work for you, get off your ass and work to change the Constitution in the prescribed manner.

Because that's the only way what you want is going to happen. If you try to do it legislatively, it'll be overturned -- guaranteed -- and you'll just sit around on your ass whining like a little bitch about it.

Actually, the only thing between sensible gun control and the bizarro world interpretation of gun ownership as an individual right is one septegenarian justice.

Scalia keels over, Obama appoints his replacement. SCOTUS finds that part in the Second Amendment about "Well-Regulated Militias" again.

Frankly, we should probably have a constititional convention and rewrite the entire thing for the 21st century, but we know we won't do that.

That's right... we won't... we all know how that turns out...

People like YOU are the problem, not firearms.

 

[mudwhistle]

[
Then instead of whining like a little bitch on the internet and expecting someone else to do the work for you, get off your ass and work to change the Constitution in the prescribed manner.

Because that's the only way what you want is going to happen. If you try to do it legislatively, it'll be overturned -- guaranteed -- and you'll just sit around on your ass whining like a little bitch about it.

Actually, the only thing between sensible gun control and the bizarro world interpretation of gun ownership as an individual right is one septegenarian justice.

Scalia keels over, Obama appoints his replacement. SCOTUS finds that part in the Second Amendment about "Well-Regulated Militias" again.

Frankly, we should probably have a constititional convention and rewrite the entire thing for the 21st century, but we know we won't do that.

Nice......you hope someone dies so more people can be saved. So much for this compassionate liberal message you keep spewing.

Fact is getting rid of guns is not going to end death. You act like it will.

Face it Joe.......you're a tool. Nothing more.

 

[JoeB131]

[
The Constitution is just fine.

Only-freedom-loathing, America-hating progs think it needs to be rewritten.

you mean other than a congress that can't get things done, a system of electing presidents that only count 10 states out of 50...

No, the constitution is not a great document. It's seriously flawed, and most countries don't keep the same constitution for 225 years for a reason.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Then instead of whining like a little bitch on the internet and expecting someone else to do the work for you, get off your ass and work to change the Constitution in the prescribed manner.

Because that's the only way what you want is going to happen. If you try to do it legislatively, it'll be overturned -- guaranteed -- and you'll just sit around on your ass whining like a little bitch about it.

Actually, the only thing between sensible gun control and the bizarro world interpretation of gun ownership as an individual right is one septegenarian justice.

Scalia keels over, Obama appoints his replacement. SCOTUS finds that part in the Second Amendment about "Well-Regulated Militias" again.

Frankly, we should probably have a constititional convention and rewrite the entire thing for the 21st century, but we know we won't do that.

That's right... we won't... we all know how that turns out...


People like YOU are the problem, not firearms.

I'm not the one causing 31,000 deaths every year. that would be letting anyone who asks for a gun have one.

 

[mudwhistle]

[

I've gotten rid of all of my Section 8s.

Happy now?

Hater.

Btw, my point was that E-6 is nothing to brag about.

Other than the fact that 90% of those who enlist never reach that rank...

but that isn't what it's about, and you know it.

It's about your inability to argue your point, and going for the personal attack.

I have no problem arguing my point. Your problem is you cannot give me a rational response, primarily because you're repeating nonsensical lib talking points instead of really thinking out the issue.

FYI, E-6 is the lowest of what are considered Senior NCOs. In the Army you only have to do the time, pass the board, and get a high enough cut-off score. E-7 is promoted by the Department of the Army in Washington. It practically takes an act of Congress to demote you. E-6, not so much. In the Navy you don't put on the tan uniform that officers wear until you make E-7. A Chief Petty Officer pretty much walks on water. In the Marines a Gunnery SGT (E-7) is like a God. I'm not familiar with Air Force traditions, so I can't comment on them.

 

[JoeB131]

[

FYI, E-6 is the lowest of what are considered Senior NCOs. In the Army you only have to do the time, pass the board, and get a high enough cut-off score. E-7 is promoted by the Department of the Army in Washington. It practically takes an act of Congress to demote you. E-6, not so much. In the Navy you don't put on the tan uniform that officers wear until you make E-7. A Chief Petty Officer pretty much walks on water. In the Marines a Gunnery SGT (E-7) is like a God. I'm not familiar with Air Force traditions, so I can't comment on them.

Point is, it's a SENIOR NCO position.

I was offered an E-7 position when I got out, I just didn't want it at that point.

And, no they usually won't demote an E-7 when he fucks up, and I've seen it. They usually encourage him to retire.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, the only thing between sensible gun control and the bizarro world interpretation of gun ownership as an individual right is one septegenarian justice.

Scalia keels over, Obama appoints his replacement. SCOTUS finds that part in the Second Amendment about "Well-Regulated Militias" again.

Frankly, we should probably have a constititional convention and rewrite the entire thing for the 21st century, but we know we won't do that.

That's right... we won't... we all know how that turns out...


People like YOU are the problem, not firearms.

I'm not the one causing 31,000 deaths every year. that would be letting anyone who asks for a gun have one.

I think whenever you publish statistics you need to also use links to quantify your stats. We don't know exactly what the causes of these alleged professed deaths nor the circumstances.