Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case. But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire. Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.

Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone. I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible. Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that? I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat! And, he's only being charged with manslaughter? So much for responsibility.



Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church


As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn. He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim). It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range. That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get. I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such. But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

Mertex isn't after criminals or lowering murder rates, it's the guns she's after. She wants a government monopoly on them. It's like liberals call you greedy, while they are taking your money by force ... with guns ...

 

[kaz]

The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

 

[Fishlore]

The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

And there is a lot they don't understand, metaphor is one of those things you have to be on the college track to get taught in the high schools they stumbled through. The sad little takeaway of that sputtering rebuttal, namely that the metaphor signifies I "equate guns with sex" reveals how illiterate your average pistol kisser really is.

Of course most of them live in red states where public schools are deliberately atrocious, designed to keep the lower orders in their places. It's down near the bottom of the social scale in those backward regions where "at least I'm white" has provided a rationale for all sorts of bigotry and extra-legal violence. Fortunately, these cultural dinosaurs are dying off at an accelerating rate. They will not be missed.

 

[kaz]

The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

 

[Fishlore]

The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

 

[Ernie S.]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case. But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire. Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.

Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone. I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible. Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that? I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat! And, he's only being charged with manslaughter? So much for responsibility.



Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church


As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn. He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim). It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range. That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get. I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such. But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

 

[Ernie S.]

The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

OH look! He has a vocabulary and says nothing.

 

[Flash]

[QU

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Are you always this much of a pompous ass or do you just pretend to be one on the Internet?

 

[kaz]

The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

 

[Flash]

[


Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

He was evidently educated in a Blue state. Don't expect much in the way of intellect. He is a master at being an obnoxious asshole but not much else.

 

[Fishlore]

Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case. But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire. Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.

Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone. I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible. Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that? I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat! And, he's only being charged with manslaughter? So much for responsibility.



Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church


As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn. He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim). It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range. That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get. I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such. But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.

 

[kaz]

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone. I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible. Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that? I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat! And, he's only being charged with manslaughter? So much for responsibility.



Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church


As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn. He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim). It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range. That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get. I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such. But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.

Gun laws aren't effective because we don't enforce them for criminals, just honest citizens. If you've had your right to own a gun removed through due process of law and try to buy a gun. There is no consequence, you can just move on to the next gun dealer ... or your drug dealer ... and keep trying until you score. You do nothing to keep guns from criminals. Just honest citizens

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I don'
LOL.

Wrong. I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong. UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.

And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.

It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend. Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut. BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.

Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.

What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".

Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.

Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.

As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:

What I MEANT to say is what I did say. And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.

The Second Amendment still exists. The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.

That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.

The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.

His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.

Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.

Hey fishfart:

While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?

YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns. I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.

Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.

Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling. Not my fault you are a fish fuckface. Deal with it, bitch.

But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."

This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.

Fishfucker:

You remain wrong. No surprise.

 

[Mertex]

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

Exactly. No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!

Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?

Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol

Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.

 

[Mertex]

Just honest citizens

That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just honest citizens

That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.

No one is a criminal until they commit a crime.

But if you want to treat everyone like a criminal waiting to happen then why don't you propose getting rid of the 4th amendment or the fifth?

After all if we're all just criminals in waiting then we should just let the police search any house any time they want.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Exactly. No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!

Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?

Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol

Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.

But you are the moron. You are clearly NOT trying to change it. For that would REQUIRE a Constitutional Amendment. And you liberal goobers aren't engaged in a process of seeking to Amend the Constitution at this time.

 

[Mertex]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed. I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either

 

[Fishlore]

The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?