No one is going to take your guns

[daveman]

The "Car culture" isn't made up of people spending pages of people talking about the folks they'd like to run over.

As opposed to the gun culture, where you guys just fantasize about shooting people all day.

You really shouldn't project your barely-suppressed tendency towards violence on others.

 

[JoeB131]

But those countries did not have the Bill of Rights

We kicked a$$ on one of those above to obtain it, and will kick a$$ here to keep it

-Geaux

Nothing wrong with the Second Amendment that can't be fixed with a Sharpie...

Or a sensible court decision.

Seriously, this is an absurd argument "I think we should continue a bad policy because 250 years ago, some slave rapists couldn't properly define a Militia".

There's NO GOOD REASON for an average citizen to own a military grade weapon. None.

Not to mention the fact, it is the availability of guns that contributes to the crime you guys are on about.

There's NO GOOD REASON for you to spout your dangerous, un-American, hateful opinions.

The First Amendment needs to be fixed so irresponsible people like you aren't allowed to express your opinions.

The day my words can kill anything but your fragile ego, you'd have a good argument for regulating it.

 

[zeke]

But those countries did not have the Bill of Rights

We kicked a$$ on one of those above to obtain it, and will kick a$$ here to keep it

-Geaux

Nothing wrong with the Second Amendment that can't be fixed with a Sharpie...

Or a sensible court decision.

Seriously, this is an absurd argument "I think we should continue a bad policy because 250 years ago, some slave rapists couldn't properly define a Militia".

There's NO GOOD REASON for an average citizen to own a military grade weapon. None.

Not to mention the fact, it is the availability of guns that contributes to the crime you guys are on about.

There's NO GOOD REASON for you to spout your dangerous, un-American, hateful opinions.

The First Amendment needs to be fixed so irresponsible people like you aren't allowed to express your opinions.

You have gone off the deep end now davy. Crazy shit. What is it about you that makes you so un American?

 

[daveman]

It is so weird to hear someone like a daveman who worships the idea of gun violence worry about the number of abortions having been performed.

Dave wants to shoot a threatening criminal and pregnant women want to end the unwanted pregnancy.

Wtf davy do they have to do with one another?

For one thing, it highlights the absolute hypocrisy of the left. You demand those dangerous to society be coddled and not held responsible for their actions -- while at the same time demanding women be able to kill at will the purest, most innocent of human beings.

Don't tell me you give a shit about human life. You don't.

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing wrong with the Second Amendment that can't be fixed with a Sharpie...

Or a sensible court decision.

Seriously, this is an absurd argument "I think we should continue a bad policy because 250 years ago, some slave rapists couldn't properly define a Militia".

There's NO GOOD REASON for an average citizen to own a military grade weapon. None.

Not to mention the fact, it is the availability of guns that contributes to the crime you guys are on about.

There's NO GOOD REASON for you to spout your dangerous, un-American, hateful opinions.

The First Amendment needs to be fixed so irresponsible people like you aren't allowed to express your opinions.

You have gone off the deep end now davy. Crazy shit. What is it about you that makes you so un American?

Davey went off the deep end years ago.

 

[martybegan]

Nothing wrong with the Second Amendment that can't be fixed with a Sharpie...

Or a sensible court decision.

Seriously, this is an absurd argument "I think we should continue a bad policy because 250 years ago, some slave rapists couldn't properly define a Militia".

There's NO GOOD REASON for an average citizen to own a military grade weapon. None.

Not to mention the fact, it is the availability of guns that contributes to the crime you guys are on about.

There's NO GOOD REASON for you to spout your dangerous, un-American, hateful opinions.

The First Amendment needs to be fixed so irresponsible people like you aren't allowed to express your opinions.

The day my words can kill anything but your fragile ego, you'd have a good argument for regulating it.

Words lead to deaths just as weapons, the only difference is words can spur multitudes to kill for whatever reason the speaker wishes. Ask those who felt the national razor during the Reign of Terror, or a bullet in the back of thier head during Stalin's Purges how words can fail to kill. Words are ideas, and ideas have lead to far more needless death than any weapon has or will.

 

[daveman]

If strict gun control laws worked, Chicago wouldn't have the gun violence stats it does.

Except Chicago doesn't have strict gun control laws.

The laws aren't "strict" if you can walk two blocks to Cicero and buy a gun there.

Doesn't matter where you buy it, Skippy. You're not allowed to own a gun in Chicago.

How's that working out for you?

 

[martybegan]

If strict gun control laws worked, Chicago wouldn't have the gun violence stats it does.

Except Chicago doesn't have strict gun control laws.

The laws aren't "strict" if you can walk two blocks to Cicero and buy a gun there.

But it should be a paradise, because, you know, everyone will follow the law once it is passed.

 

[daveman]

Nothing wrong with the Second Amendment that can't be fixed with a Sharpie...

Or a sensible court decision.

Seriously, this is an absurd argument "I think we should continue a bad policy because 250 years ago, some slave rapists couldn't properly define a Militia".

There's NO GOOD REASON for an average citizen to own a military grade weapon. None.

Not to mention the fact, it is the availability of guns that contributes to the crime you guys are on about.

There's NO GOOD REASON for you to spout your dangerous, un-American, hateful opinions.

The First Amendment needs to be fixed so irresponsible people like you aren't allowed to express your opinions.

The day my words can kill anything but your fragile ego, you'd have a good argument for regulating it.

The only thing you can kill is my patience.

Nevertheless, views like yours have led to the deaths of millions. History proves this.

 

[JoeB131]

It is so weird to hear someone like a daveman who worships the idea of gun violence worry about the number of abortions having been performed.

Dave wants to shoot a threatening criminal and pregnant women want to end the unwanted pregnancy.

Wtf davy do they have to do with one another?

For one thing, it highlights the absolute hypocrisy of the left. You demand those dangerous to society be coddled and not held responsible for their actions -- while at the same time demanding women be able to kill at will the purest, most innocent of human beings.

Don't tell me you give a shit about human life. You don't.

Fetuses aren't human beings.

No one is arguing that dangerous people- the truly dangerous- be coddled.

What we are arguing is that throwing a kid who robbed a liquor store to feed an addiction probably needs medical treatment, not to be thrown in prison to be sexually abused, and then rendered unemployable for life because he has a criminal record.

Again, we lock up 2 million and have another 7 million in the system through parole or probation.

How is that working out for us? Judging by the way you cling to your guns in terror, I'd say, "Not very well."

 

[daveman]

Nothing wrong with the Second Amendment that can't be fixed with a Sharpie...

Or a sensible court decision.

Seriously, this is an absurd argument "I think we should continue a bad policy because 250 years ago, some slave rapists couldn't properly define a Militia".

There's NO GOOD REASON for an average citizen to own a military grade weapon. None.

Not to mention the fact, it is the availability of guns that contributes to the crime you guys are on about.

There's NO GOOD REASON for you to spout your dangerous, un-American, hateful opinions.

The First Amendment needs to be fixed so irresponsible people like you aren't allowed to express your opinions.

You have gone off the deep end now davy. Crazy shit. What is it about you that makes you so un American?

Hey, dumbass: I'm applying irrational anti-gun "logic" to the freedom of speech.

Now, are you going to claim anti-gunners are crazy and un-American?

Of course you won't. You're a hypocrite.

 

[mudwhistle]

If strict gun control laws worked, Chicago wouldn't have the gun violence stats it does.

Except Chicago doesn't have strict gun control laws.

The laws aren't "strict" if you can walk two blocks to Cicero and buy a gun there.

You can buy a gun here too, but then you had better not have any kind of record.

 

[JoeB131]

[
The only thing you can kill is my patience.

Nevertheless, views like yours have led to the deaths of millions. History proves this.

Yup, those crazy ideas like, "People who do the work should get the money", that's just crazy talk, man.

Don't you know we all have to work very hard so a few rich people can have Dressage Ponies. And die in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing.

(Psst. Psst. If I'm a communist, so were Reagan and Ike.)

 

[martybegan]

How strange that Americans don't cut off the problems of GUN MURDER at its sourse,by banning GUNs.....

Like they cut off all alcoholic beverages in the 1920s by banning alcohol?

And like they cut off all marijuana by banning weed?

And like they cut off all cocaine by banning cocaine?

I'm sure banning guns would work almost as well as those bans have worked.

This liberal has been told that, of course. He can't respond to it, so he ignores it. He seems to think that will make the facts go away.

Actually, drug bans did exactly what they were supposed to do.

Before drugs were banned and regulated, we had 1 million opium addicts out of a population of sixty million. (By comparison, it would be like if we had five million hard core addicts today.) Quacks were selling "patent medicines" laced with Cocaine that had no medicinal value, but of course they made people feel better.

Prohibition- which really did work well in most of the country, was enacted because of anti-immigrant and specifically anti-German sentiment during WWI. In short, people had no idea what they were actually voting for until they started trying to enforce it.

Of coure, the argument that "a gun ban would never work", ignores the fact that it works just fine in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada.

Prohibition didnt work anywhere, even the counties that were dry PRIOR to it had alcohol availible at any given time. Anyone who wanted it got it, they just paid more. All prohibtion did was pay off gangsters and lead to an overall disrespect for the law.

And in all the countries you noted, please remember thier form of governments for centuries have been where power flows From the soveriegn to the people. Most of them have no issue, even with republican forms of government, seeing power flowing from the government TO them. They are sheep, even the Canadians, who are the least sheep-like. Here power flows from the people TO the government, and the people retain certain rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. There rights are GRANTED by the soverigen/government.

I feel we could take up a collection to have you move to the UK permenently. I'd contribute to get your slime sucking face out of my country.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Prohibition didnt work anywhere, even the counties that were dry PRIOR to it had alcohol availible at any given time. Anyone who wanted it got it, they just paid more. All prohibtion did was pay off gangsters and lead to an overall disrespect for the law.

Actually, Prohibition did exactly what people wanted it to do.

Actually, Prohibition Was a Success - NYTimes.com

Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

[
And in all the countries you noted, please remember thier form of governments for centuries have been where power flows From the soveriegn to the people. Most of them have no issue, even with republican forms of government, seeing power flowing from the government TO them. They are sheep, even the Canadians, who are the least sheep-like. Here power flows from the people TO the government, and the people retain certain rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. There rights are GRANTED by the soverigen/government.

I feel we could take up a collection to have you move to the UK permenently. I'd contribute to get your slime sucking face out of my country.

I'd pay to deport you, but I can't think of a country I dislike enough to wish you upon.

Hey, maybe all those other countries just don't see a good reason for guns to be so available that criminals and crazy people can get them with ease.

You see, you guys go on and on about "the Second Amendment" and "Rights", but what you haven't made is a good case WHY you should have a gun. Or even why you need one.

I should also point out most of those countries did have greater availability of guns than they do now. For instance, in WWII Germany, gun ownership was common for Germans. The guy who took them away was Eisenhower during the occupation because they were taking pot-shots at allied troops.

 

[BlackSand]

NOthing in the Second Amendment that can't be cured with a Sharpie...
Eventually, people are going to get sick of you gun nuts and your bullshit.

Is anybody taking odds on when poor Joe goes China Syndrome on us?
It doesn't look like it will be all that long before goes all Adam Lanza on us ... I just hope he doesn't have a firearm.

I am betting it will be before Friday when he completely loses it.
Is it my turn to bring the popcorn or what?

.

You're the one running around screaming about "police states" and wanting to shoot law enforcement...

You melted down a long time ago...

That is every bit you and nothing me ...

What you described wanting is a Police State ... If you have a problem what that ... Well that is your problem not mine.
I never said I wanted to shoot anyone ... Between the two of us the only person that wants harm to come to other people is you.

Get a grip peanut ... You are losing.

.

 

[JoeB131]

[

That is every bit you and nothing me ...

What you described wanting is a Police State ... If you have a problem what that ... Well that is your problem not mine.
I never said I wanted to shoot anyone ... Between the two of us the only person that wants harm to come to other people is you.

Get a grip peanut ... You are losing.

.

Um, the countries that ban guns have less crime, less prisoners, and in most cases, less police than we do.

Police presense is a symptom of the Crime Society you guys seem to love so much, because, you know, "Freedom".

 

[martybegan]

[

Prohibition didnt work anywhere, even the counties that were dry PRIOR to it had alcohol availible at any given time. Anyone who wanted it got it, they just paid more. All prohibtion did was pay off gangsters and lead to an overall disrespect for the law.

Actually, Prohibition did exactly what people wanted it to do.

Actually, Prohibition Was a Success - NYTimes.com

Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

[
And in all the countries you noted, please remember thier form of governments for centuries have been where power flows From the soveriegn to the people. Most of them have no issue, even with republican forms of government, seeing power flowing from the government TO them. They are sheep, even the Canadians, who are the least sheep-like. Here power flows from the people TO the government, and the people retain certain rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. There rights are GRANTED by the soverigen/government.

I feel we could take up a collection to have you move to the UK permenently. I'd contribute to get your slime sucking face out of my country.

I'd pay to deport you, but I can't think of a country I dislike enough to wish you upon.

Hey, maybe all those other countries just don't see a good reason for guns to be so available that criminals and crazy people can get them with ease.

You see, you guys go on and on about "the Second Amendment" and "Rights", but what you haven't made is a good case WHY you should have a gun. Or even why you need one.

I should also point out most of those countries did have greater availability of guns than they do now. For instance, in WWII Germany, gun ownership was common for Germans. The guy who took them away was Eisenhower during the occupation because they were taking pot-shots at allied troops.

Fuck off Joe. You find one times article that says prohibition was a success, but you forget since so much of the alcohol was under the table, they couldnt really track how much was coming in. The medical information is correllation not causation, as it does not take into account medical advances at the time, as well as people not going to the doctor due to fear of being caught doing something illegal.

Finally, ask the people of Chicago and New York about the crime increases. People in Kentucky were already bootlegging because prohibition was there decades before.

I dont have to make a case for "why" when it comes to a right. You have to come up with 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to tell my 'why not"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[JoeB131]

[

Fuck off Joe. You find one times article that says prohibition was a success, but you forget since so much of the alcohol was under the table, they couldnt really track how much was coming in. The medical information is correllation not causation, as it does not take into account medical advances at the time, as well as people not going to the doctor due to fear of being caught doing something illegal.

Finally, ask the people of Chicago and New York about the crime increases. People in Kentucky were already bootlegging because prohibition was there decades before.

I dont have to make a case for "why" when it comes to a right. You have to come up with 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to tell my 'why not"

Please go die somewhere.

except crime really didn't increase... as the article says.

And, no, all we need is one good SCOTUS ruling to throw out the abortion that was Heller, and we can start banning guns.

But we don't even have to do that. Just get rid of the law that exempts gun makers from the mayhem their products cause. Once they've paid out a couple of million dollar lawsuits, they are going to change their behavior really quickly.

 

[martybegan]

[

Fuck off Joe. You find one times article that says prohibition was a success, but you forget since so much of the alcohol was under the table, they couldnt really track how much was coming in. The medical information is correllation not causation, as it does not take into account medical advances at the time, as well as people not going to the doctor due to fear of being caught doing something illegal.

Finally, ask the people of Chicago and New York about the crime increases. People in Kentucky were already bootlegging because prohibition was there decades before.

I dont have to make a case for "why" when it comes to a right. You have to come up with 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to tell my 'why not"

Please go die somewhere.

except crime really didn't increase... as the article says.

And, no, all we need is one good SCOTUS ruling to throw out the abortion that was Heller, and we can start banning guns.

But we don't even have to do that. Just get rid of the law that exempts gun makers from the mayhem their products cause. Once they've paid out a couple of million dollar lawsuits, they are going to change their behavior really quickly.

Once again, Joe goes with the 5 of 9 unelected lawyer route to deny someone of thier rights. Or he goes for the backdoor approach via the manufacturers, even though in our jurisprudence you cannot sue a manufacturer for a product that works as intended just because you don't like it. Those laws were created because juries and judges were making personal decsions that they didnt like something, they were not intepreting the law or finding fault.

Joe will find any slimy way he can to get what he wants, no matter what law or consitutional concept he has to smash or break. You are a danger to our country and our way of life, and you have to be marginalized so your opinons are ridiculed and rejected as the utter facsist bullshit that they are.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX