One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

[Nosmo King]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

Taking away my ability to protect myself and family from these criminals is unconscionable. When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Until then ....

Shot a lot of muggers, have you? Capped an intruder lately? Have the absolute need to gun someone down in the last month or two?

Or has your paranoia blinded you to the havoc high rates of fire spraying bullets can cause?

 

[Slyhunter]

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

Taking away my ability to protect myself and family from these criminals is unconscionable. When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Until then ....

Shot a lot of muggers, have you? Capped an intruder lately? Have the absolute need to gun someone down in the last month or two?

Or has your paranoia blinded you to the havoc high rates of fire spraying bullets can cause?

You may only need a gun once in a lifetime ...
Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

 

[theHawk]

I know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)

Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:

Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)

The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......

Has it ever occurred to you that if someone is so dangerous that they would be put on a "no-fly list" or has mental issues with violent tendencies, perhaps they should be locked up and thus not able to harm anyone, much less buy a gun?

The blood is on the hands of bleeding heart liberals that would rather keep these wackos on the street.

 

[deanrd]

One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

I can think of a bunch. But the most obvious is Democrats have more teeth.

 

[Spare_change]

One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

I can think of a bunch. But the most obvious is Democrats have more teeth.

... and fewer women, and less beer.

 

[Dale Smith]

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

Taking away my ability to protect myself and family from these criminals is unconscionable. When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Until then ....

Shot a lot of muggers, have you? Capped an intruder lately? Have the absolute need to gun someone down in the last month or two?

Or has your paranoia blinded you to the havoc high rates of fire spraying bullets can cause?

One of the planks of the communist manifesto that the Dems adopted at a secret caucus in 1980 was that the American public must be disarmed. 80 prominent demcrat politicians have ties to communist front groups and get contributions from George Soros and his NGOs......that is a fact.

 

[Nosmo King]

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

Taking away my ability to protect myself and family from these criminals is unconscionable. When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Until then ....

Shot a lot of muggers, have you? Capped an intruder lately? Have the absolute need to gun someone down in the last month or two?

Or has your paranoia blinded you to the havoc high rates of fire spraying bullets can cause?

One of the planks of the communist manifesto that the Dems adopted at a secret caucus in 1980 was that the American public must be disarmed. 80 prominent demcrat politicians have ties to communist front groups and get contributions from George Soros and his NGOs......that is a fact.

In case of emergency cry "Communist!"

Page three, Republican playbook published 1946

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)

Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:

Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)

The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......

The biggest difference is their name.

Yes, they have different positions when it comes to guns, the problem is that neither of them will actually do anything about it.

 

[Dale Smith]

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

Taking away my ability to protect myself and family from these criminals is unconscionable. When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Until then ....

Shot a lot of muggers, have you? Capped an intruder lately? Have the absolute need to gun someone down in the last month or two?

Or has your paranoia blinded you to the havoc high rates of fire spraying bullets can cause?

One of the planks of the communist manifesto that the Dems adopted at a secret caucus in 1980 was that the American public must be disarmed. 80 prominent demcrat politicians have ties to communist front groups and get contributions from George Soros and his NGOs......that is a fact.

In case of emergency cry "Communist!"

Page three, Republican playbook published 1946

Nosmos, you are a communist at heart and an unwitting tool of the very oligarchs that you claim to be against.....you are nothing but a tool.........sucks to be you. I would laugh at you if I was watching this from afar and you are more to be pitied than scolded.

 

[Dale Smith]

I know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)

Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:

Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)

The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......

The biggest difference is their name.

Yes, they have different positions when it comes to guns, the problem is that neither of them will actually do anything about it.

Nothing to do about it...............it is a fundamental right and nether you or I have the authority to usurp the 2nd amendment. Your masters want unarmed serfs....you are simply too fucking stupid to realize it. You are a chicken looking to Colonel Sanders to keep you safe while you get fattened up for the kill.....

 

[nat4900]

make it harder to defend the masses from their government.

Fucked up PARANOIA by the above idiot.

 

[nat4900]

you are simply too fucking stupid to realize it. You are a chicken looking to Colonel Sanders to keep you safe while you get fattened up for the kill.....

Yet ANOTHER right winger with a bad case of PARANOIA....

 

[nat4900]

When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Above, the same EXACT paranoia expressed by KJU......

 

[nat4900]

Has it ever occurred to you that if someone is so dangerous that they would be put on a "no-fly list" or has mental issues with violent tendencies, perhaps they should be locked up and thus not able to harm anyone, much less buy a gun?

The blood is on the hands of bleeding heart liberals that would rather keep these wackos on the street.

Moron, its was that "liberal" named Ronnie Reagan that allowed these "wackos" to roam the streets......

 

[whitehall]

The gizmo that Paddock apparently used to convert a semi-auto weapon to fully auto was approved by the ATF (the same ATF that shipped 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels) during the Obama administration. Apparently the NRA has no problem with banning the gizmo but democrats are desperate to keep the issue alive even though it points to their negligence.

 

[L.K.Eder]

the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums

Why do you hate our children's eardrum?!

the solution to help children's eardrums is not a further tool, it is ABSTINENCE!

 

[deanrd]

One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

I can think of a bunch. But the most obvious is Democrats have more teeth.

... and fewer women, and less beer.

Oh, Democrats have lots of women. They like their civil rights.

And fewer drunks. You're right there.

 

[Nosmo King]

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

Taking away my ability to protect myself and family from these criminals is unconscionable. When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Until then ....

Shot a lot of muggers, have you? Capped an intruder lately? Have the absolute need to gun someone down in the last month or two?

Or has your paranoia blinded you to the havoc high rates of fire spraying bullets can cause?

One of the planks of the communist manifesto that the Dems adopted at a secret caucus in 1980 was that the American public must be disarmed. 80 prominent demcrat politicians have ties to communist front groups and get contributions from George Soros and his NGOs......that is a fact.

In case of emergency cry "Communist!"

Page three, Republican playbook published 1946

Nosmos, you are a communist at heart and an unwitting tool of the very oligarchs that you claim to be against.....you are nothing but a tool.........sucks to be you. I would laugh at you if I was watching this from afar and you are more to be pitied than scolded.

Awww. You're sweet!

 

[Spare_change]

When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Above, the same EXACT paranoia expressed by KJU......

Your ignorance is mind-blowing.

Just running off at the mouth again.

 

[Spare_change]

One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

I can think of a bunch. But the most obvious is Democrats have more teeth.

... and fewer women, and less beer.

Oh, Democrats have lots of women. They like their civil rights.

And fewer drunks. You're right there.

I've seen those Democrat women --- Pelosi, Waters, Warren --- that's a lot of winners you got there. The problem is, when you're done, you still got to talk to them.

We got the cute ones --- Perino, Guilfoyle, Melania, Haley ---