No one is going to take your guns

[daveman]

Have any of you rightwing nitwits ever considered politely responding to Joe that Americans aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed exercise that right?

And have you conservative morons considered explaining to Joe that although he’s likely correct with regard to the data and statistics he relates with regard to gun deaths and violence, that ‘banning’ guns or even imposing additional restrictions won’t address gun deaths and violence, anymore than ‘banning’ abortion will stop that practice?

Last, have any of you on the idiotic right considered that the above approach will make others perceive you as thoughtful and responsible concerning the issue of guns, as opposed to crazy and irresponsible, as you’re perceived now?

Or you can continue with the usual conservative stupidity.

I've tried being civil with Joe.

He's not interested.

And I notice you don't have any words of criticism for his crazy and irresponsible approach.

So feel free to flounce off in a huff now. Buh-bye!

 

[daveman]

Ignoring your idiotic trying to parse the math question, (Pssst... Pssst- if you throw in the 1000 accidental gun deaths, it is 160 to one.) I actually am going to play with the 'We are in a police state" nonsense.

Don't bother, because you got that wrong, too, dumbass. BlackSand didn't say we're in a Police State

Currently, the police are NOT the only people with firearms, so we're not a Police State.

However, you have said you want the police to be the ONLY people who have firearms.

Therefore, you WANT a Police State.

You suck at logic just as badly as you suck at everything else. Dumbass.

I like how you edited the post so you could avoid the point, guy.

The point is, all those other countries have banned guns, have less cops than we have, have less prisoners and less murder, and they aren't police states, either.

Good Gaea, you're a dumb motherfucker.

You want a police state. That's the point.

 

[JoeB131]

[
I've tried being civil with Joe.

He's not interested.

And I notice you don't have any words of criticism for his crazy and irresponsible approach.

So feel free to flounce off in a huff now. Buh-bye!

I'm sorry, guy, when did you try being civil with me. I must have missed that. Every time I talk to you, you are rude, condescending and try to make the discussion about me rather than the topic.

Also, what is so crazy about doing EXACTLY what every other industrialized nation has already done.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't bother, because you got that wrong, too, dumbass. BlackSand didn't say we're in a Police State

Currently, the police are NOT the only people with firearms, so we're not a Police State.

However, you have said you want the police to be the ONLY people who have firearms.

Therefore, you WANT a Police State.

You suck at logic just as badly as you suck at everything else. Dumbass.

I like how you edited the post so you could avoid the point, guy.

The point is, all those other countries have banned guns, have less cops than we have, have less prisoners and less murder, and they aren't police states, either.

Good Gaea, you're a dumb motherfucker.

You want a police state. That's the point.

NO, I want a society without nuts with guns.

Since you gun nuts won't control yourselves, I have no problem taking everyone's guns.

Problem solved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have any of you rightwing nitwits ever considered politely responding to Joe that Americans aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed exercise that right?

And have you conservative morons considered explaining to Joe that although he’s likely correct with regard to the data and statistics he relates with regard to gun deaths and violence, that ‘banning’ guns or even imposing additional restrictions won’t address gun deaths and violence, anymore than ‘banning’ abortion will stop that practice?

Last, have any of you on the idiotic right considered that the above approach will make others perceive you as thoughtful and responsible concerning the issue of guns, as opposed to crazy and irresponsible, as you’re perceived now?

Or you can continue with the usual conservative stupidity.

You want us to go back a few months and point all the times we said that, and how he continues to insist on infringing our rights because he is an idiot? I treat assholes, like you, the way they fucking deserve. If you want fucking respect stop pretending you are smarter than rdean.

 

[martybegan]

[

Also, alcohol was NEVER a constitutionally mandated right. Something you keep ignoring you assclown.

Neither are guns...
There's something in there about Militias, though.

It doesn't say the militas right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says the people.

Guns are a protected right, no matter how much you say they are not.

 

[BlackSand]

You want a police state. That's the point.

NO, I want a society without nuts with guns.

Since you gun nuts won't control yourselves, I have no problem taking everyone's guns.

Problem solved.

Translation:
I don't want a Police State ... I want a Police State because y'all are crazy law abiding citizens and aren't shooting anybody ... So we need to take your guns away.

Just admit it Joe ... You are trying to give PMZ a run for the money.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

I like how you edited the post so you could avoid the point, guy.

The point is, all those other countries have banned guns, have less cops than we have, have less prisoners and less murder, and they aren't police states, either.

Good Gaea, you're a dumb motherfucker.

You want a police state. That's the point.

NO, I want a society without nuts with guns.

Since you gun nuts won't control yourselves, I have no problem taking everyone's guns.

Problem solved.

You wont take chit Joe, you lack the skilz

-Geaux

 

[Jarlaxle]

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

Is this a joke or are you serious?

He's seriously stupid.

 

[Geaux4it]

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

Is this a joke or are you serious?

He's seriously stupid.

Try follow his examples of why his talking points should even be considered. He seems to always have some direct or remote tie to every debate.

Sorry, he is a bull chitter

-Geaux

 

[Jarlaxle]

[
They were all off-duty, and were carrying their own personal weapons.

You know, the kind of weapons you would forbid.

So -- you failed. Yet again.

If nobody has guns, nobody needs them.

The point is, these were TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, not yahoos out there with a gun playing "George Zimmerman".

Please explain, in detail, how a 4'5", 90lb woman is supposed to fend off a 6'3", 250lb rapist if she is unarmed. Be specific.

For the record, the correct method would be: aim at center mass and fire until the threat is neutralized.

 

[Geaux4it]

[
They were all off-duty, and were carrying their own personal weapons.

You know, the kind of weapons you would forbid.

So -- you failed. Yet again.

If nobody has guns, nobody needs them.

The point is, these were TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, not yahoos out there with a gun playing "George Zimmerman".

Trained professionals are not legally required to come to yours or my aid.

Now what?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

[
They were all off-duty, and were carrying their own personal weapons.

You know, the kind of weapons you would forbid.

So -- you failed. Yet again.

If nobody has guns, nobody needs them.

The point is, these were TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, not yahoos out there with a gun playing "George Zimmerman".

Please explain, in detail, how a 4'5", 90lb woman is supposed to fend off a 6'3", 250lb rapist if she is unarmed. Be specific.

For the record, the correct method would be: aim at center mass and fire until the threat is neutralized.

I think I read where some leftist loon suggested she pee on her attacker, or maybe barf

-Geaux

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

You just live in the court of 'wrong'. Much softer targets available, perhaps like your house, than at mine. For that, I will give a thug credit. They know its a no win game at my house

-Geaux

What they probably know is your house is a great place to get a gun.

anywhere from 250,000 to 600,000 guns are stolen from private residences every year.

Most of them end up in the hands of criminals.

I wish them luck getting into my safe! They could take one gun that I don't keep in the safe...but I can't imagine a criminal having any use for a muzzle-loading musket.

 

[Jarlaxle]

no, daveman is right. he is talking about another layer NYC specifically is trying to force through.

He's pointing to an illegal rifle, which holds more than 5 rounds.

So I ask again:

How many legal, lawful guns have been confiscated?

and what they did was changed the rules. took steps to identify what you had and then after the fact added to what they would no longer consider legal.

...in other words, an ex post facto law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Have any of you rightwing nitwits ever considered politely responding

Noticed this tidbit as I scanned some of the posts. So cute.

 

[daveman]

[
I've tried being civil with Joe.

He's not interested.

And I notice you don't have any words of criticism for his crazy and irresponsible approach.

So feel free to flounce off in a huff now. Buh-bye!

I'm sorry, guy, when did you try being civil with me.

Several times. Your problem is you believe that anything less than immediate and unquestioning acceptance and endorsement of everything you say is an attack.

You're thin-skinned. You take disagreement personally. You're no different from other progressives.

I must have missed that.

You miss a lot. Usually on purpose.

Every time I talk to you, you are rude, condescending and try to make the discussion about me rather than the topic.

Ummm...it's not me who brings up my pension, loser.

Also, what is so crazy about doing EXACTLY what every other industrialized nation has already done.

Because none of the other nations you want to emulate has the individual right to keep and bear arms codified as a natural right in their establishing documents.

And spare me your usual deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You simply get it wrong. Deal with it. And no, you'll never be coming for anyone's weapons. That's just plain stupid.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[


As I thought: The liberal is presented with the fact that his laws didn't work, and in fact made the situation worse.

And his solution, as always, is: Try MORE liberalism! More government control and restriction on law-abiding people! Yeah, that'll do it. Then the criminals will act nicer!

Tell me, little joeb131. Are you assuming your total gun ban will suddenly start to disarm the lawbreakers (and who gives a damn what it does to law-abiding people)... because of the "success" of previous national bans?

You mean previous national bans in Canada, the UK, Japan, Germany, etc. The ones that worked just fine. Because we've never TRIED a "national" ban in this country.

Are you trying to admire how successful the ban on alcohol was in the 1920s and 30s? and how crime fell as a result?

(All it did, was turn large numbers of law-abiding Americans into criminals, and give organized crime the start they needed by creating a HUGE black market, resulting in a crime wave the nation had never seen before.)

The problem with Prohibition is that no one really knew what was being passed. They all thought it was a patriotic law to deal with them Germans and other Foreign immigrants in their Taverns suring WWI. In fact, while prohibition had been passed in 1919, no one really tried to enforce it until the 1920s.. Then they realized what a huge mistake they made.

Incidently, prohibition did work VERY well outside of Chicago. Alcohol consumption decreased considerably. Brewerys and Winerys were put out of business and there just wasn't that much booze available.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you truly are a STUPID shit!

 

[JoeB131]

[

Please explain, in detail, how a 4'5", 90lb woman is supposed to fend off a 6'3", 250lb rapist if she is unarmed. Be specific.

For the record, the correct method would be: aim at center mass and fire until the threat is neutralized.

80% of rape victims are raped by people they know.

And frankly, I'm not sure why a 6' 3" guy would want to bang a midget.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Evasion noted. Tap-dancing noted. Again: Please explain, in detail, how a 4'5", 90lb woman is supposed to fend off a 6'3", 250lb rapist if she is unarmed. Be specific.

I know you'll keep tap-dancing, but I have to try anyway, on the off chance you might actually answer a question...