Republicans need to be honest on the 2nd Amendment by saying THIS

[Redfish]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

If they said that, it would be so honest and unwavering that ppl would have to be forced to disagree or agree. But instead of being honest they play this game of peekaboo where any and all suggestions for gun control is translated into Republican speak of "Banning guns". Which does nothing to explain what you're FOR.

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions but are more comfortable bring the peanut gallery that boos anyone's suggestions to do anything different than the status quo

They don't care, pure and simple. They are people who's fear overrides all other considerations. They are terrified of life itself.

Wanting to be able to protect yourself and those you care about is not fear. Its common sense. If you choose to walk through a ghetto an 2am and just trust in the goodness of your fellow man, thats fine with me. What you have paid into social security will help ensure that I continue to collect mine.

 

[kaz]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions

Actually, we do, repeatedly, and you're too big a stupid fuck to grasp it. Let the victims defend themselves. There is something seriously wrong with you that you can't even process that

 

[2aguy]

Sorry guys.....I have to redo the numbers from the Mother Jones, anti gun mass shooting article...I was looking at the wrong column on some of the shootings...here is the correction....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369
Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many Americans carry guns for self defense...12.8 million.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions

Actually, we do, repeatedly, and you're too big a stupid fuck to grasp it. Let the victims defend themselves. There is something seriously wrong with you that you can't even process that

The victims can already defend themselves. So thanks for that already known and understood suggestion. I guess

 

[2aguy]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions

Actually, we do, repeatedly, and you're too big a stupid fuck to grasp it. Let the victims defend themselves. There is something seriously wrong with you that you can't even process that

The victims can already defend themselves. So thanks for that already known and understood suggestion. I guess

What do you mean, the victims can already defend themselves...I am curious?

 

[Redfish]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions

Actually, we do, repeatedly, and you're too big a stupid fuck to grasp it. Let the victims defend themselves. There is something seriously wrong with you that you can't even process that

The victims can already defend themselves. So thanks for that already known and understood suggestion. I guess

lets see now. an unarmed 18 year old female against a fully armed crazy male jihadist. Tell us exactly how she is able to defend herself.

 

[Misty]

The anti-2nd Amendment radicals (always democrats or socialists) need to be honest about their agenda. The ignorant radical left isn't even aware of the gun laws already on the books. All we hear is blather about "gun control" when what they are really talking about is "confiscation". In the brave new world of the radical left the crazies will occupy the parks and the libraries and every public building while Christians will go to jail if they put up a freaking Christmas tree on public property. Only the elites will be able to enjoy firearms sports and the option to protect themselves while the rabble struggle to protect their property and religious beliefs under modern Stalinists.

That sounds like the exact tyranny which caused our founders to declare independence and write a constitution that allowed for everyone to have the right to gun ownership in the first place.

 

[Misty]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions

Actually, we do, repeatedly, and you're too big a stupid fuck to grasp it. Let the victims defend themselves. There is something seriously wrong with you that you can't even process that

The victims can already defend themselves. So thanks for that already known and understood suggestion. I guess

lets see now. an unarmed 18 year old female against a fully armed crazy male jihadist. Tell us exactly how she is able to defend herself.

Lol that's why God gave men a tender area we can kick.

But seriously you're correct. All women should be able to conceal carry so if all women should have that right then I guess men should have it too.

 

[kaz]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions

Actually, we do, repeatedly, and you're too big a stupid fuck to grasp it. Let the victims defend themselves. There is something seriously wrong with you that you can't even process that

The victims can already defend themselves. So thanks for that already known and understood suggestion. I guess

They do? Who had guns besides the shooter?

 

[Iceweasel]

Pretty stupid comment, even from you. Lots of Democrats own guns too but more importantly, the guns have always been with us. So obviously to anyone with a half a brain knows the gun isn't the problem.

If your analytical abilities are limited to what you can feel, then it's all you can come up with I suppose. Nor do you grasp what the freedom to own firearms means, what it means is that government doesn't have the right to take away our ability to defend ourselves, you are bass akwards. I don't have a secret service team following me around, I'll have to take care of the problem myself.

Like I said in the OP some people will be honest and simply say that these things will happen and that's the cost of freedom. Others, like you faggot ass plays pretend every suggestion is stupid while I hide my true faggot feelings behind calling someone names.

So if you have a suggestion let's here it, if not, go fuck yourself for being the guy I described in the OP

...and right on cue, out come the homosexual slurs. The worse insult a liberal can think of. You offered pure unadulterated stupidity, not some reasonable suggestion. Democrats do own guns so it makes no sense to try to say it's a Republican issue. It's a constitutional issue. And people who are targeted aren't collateral damage, you need to look up them big words.

Boo hoo..you call names and then want better tratment. Fuck off faggot. Now make any other post crying about it.

I didn't ask for better "tratment", whatever the fuck that is. You need to learn to read. Puke less, read more.

You're right, you just cried about your faggot ass being called a faggot. Try the Shane game with someone who you can manipulate. I'm not the one

I made fun of you because you're an idiot. How is that a manipulation? Please continue, it's a sport for me.

 

[Iceweasel]

Of course Democrats own guns, but owning a gun doesn't make you a gun nut. That's mostly just right wingers.

Can you explain that?

No, I didn't think so.

 

[Zander]

Some simple questions for the gun grabbing "Bill of Rights" haters.

Do Automobiles cause drunk driving?
Do bikinis and mini skirts cause rape?

 

[Iceweasel]

...or does having a vagina make you a whore?

 

[Correll]

The homosexual slur attacks, while not excuslively the dominion of the right, is overwhelmingly employed by the right.

So once again the Rushbo "accuse the other side of doing what we do" immediately happens.

I think you haven't been paying close enough attention.

ONe of the standard lib responsse to any disagreement to the Lib agenda on Gay "Rights" has been to accuse the dissenter of being a closet homosexual, often in the most school yard and vulgar terms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The homosexual slur attacks, while not excuslively the dominion of the right, is overwhelmingly employed by the right.

So once again the Rushbo "accuse the other side of doing what we do" immediately happens.

I think you haven't been paying close enough attention.

ONe of the standard lib responsse to any disagreement to the Lib agenda on Gay "Rights" has been to accuse the dissenter of being a closet homosexual, often in the most school yard and vulgar terms.

That has happened, yes, but not as a "standard" retort. Often though the righty is a closeted gay.

 

[Correll]

The homosexual slur attacks, while not excuslively the dominion of the right, is overwhelmingly employed by the right.

So once again the Rushbo "accuse the other side of doing what we do" immediately happens.

I think you haven't been paying close enough attention.

ONe of the standard lib responsse to any disagreement to the Lib agenda on Gay "Rights" has been to accuse the dissenter of being a closet homosexual, often in the most school yard and vulgar terms.

That has happened, yes, but not as a "standard" retort. Often though the righty is a closeted gay.

Yes, standard, it happens all the time. Start paying attention and you will notice.

And no, there is no reason to assume that a conservative who disagrees with the gay activist agenda is a closeted gay.

That's nonsense.

ANd nothing but the weakest of justification for the homophobic slurs overwhelmingly employed by the LEFT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The homosexual slur attacks, while not excuslively the dominion of the right, is overwhelmingly employed by the right.

So once again the Rushbo "accuse the other side of doing what we do" immediately happens.

I think you haven't been paying close enough attention.

ONe of the standard lib responsse to any disagreement to the Lib agenda on Gay "Rights" has been to accuse the dissenter of being a closet homosexual, often in the most school yard and vulgar terms.

That has happened, yes, but not as a "standard" retort. Often though the righty is a closeted gay.

Yes, standard, it happens all the time. Start paying attention and you will notice.

And no, there is no reason to assume that a conservative who disagrees with the gay activist agenda is a closeted gay.

That's nonsense.

ANd nothing but the weakest of justification for the homophobic slurs overwhelmingly employed by the LEFT.

Typical Rushbo mirror defense: accuse the other side of doing what you are doing.

The homophobic slurs from the far right occur here every day in every way. The far right's position is that homosexuality reveals a perverse and immoral character.

The left and the responsible right are saying, "hey, come out and deal with who you are."

The latter is far more responsible than the assaults of the far right.

 

[Correll]

The homosexual slur attacks, while not excuslively the dominion of the right, is overwhelmingly employed by the right.

So once again the Rushbo "accuse the other side of doing what we do" immediately happens.

I think you haven't been paying close enough attention.

ONe of the standard lib responsse to any disagreement to the Lib agenda on Gay "Rights" has been to accuse the dissenter of being a closet homosexual, often in the most school yard and vulgar terms.

That has happened, yes, but not as a "standard" retort. Often though the righty is a closeted gay.

Yes, standard, it happens all the time. Start paying attention and you will notice.

And no, there is no reason to assume that a conservative who disagrees with the gay activist agenda is a closeted gay.

That's nonsense.

ANd nothing but the weakest of justification for the homophobic slurs overwhelmingly employed by the LEFT.

Typical Rushbo mirror defense: accuse the other side of doing what you are doing.

The homophobic slurs from the far right occur here every day in every way. The far right's position is that homosexuality reveals a perverse and immoral character.

The left and the responsible right are saying, "hey, come out and deal with who you are."

The latter is far more responsible than the assaults of the far right.

You are kidding yourself.

I recall a comment from Dan Savage, who was responding to a female who felt slighted that he said that male homosexuals were somehow the wildest.

Her defense, "you don't know what a slut I am for my man".

His rebuttal. "Have you ever gone into a dark corner of a bar and had sex with some one you have never even seen"?

It is gay behavior that reveals a "perverse and immoral character".

It is the Left that constantly tries to smear it's ideological opponents with that label.

 

[JakeStarkey]

]Typical Rushbo mirror defense: accuse the other side of doing what you are doing.

The homophobic slurs from the far right occur here every day in every way. The far right's position is that homosexuality reveals a perverse and immoral character.

The left and the responsible right are saying, "hey, come out and deal with who you are."

The latter is far more responsible than the assaults of the far right.

You are kidding yourself.

I recall a comment from Dan Savage, who was responding to a female who felt slighted that he said that male homosexuals were somehow the wildest.

Her defense, "you don't know what a slut I am for my man".

His rebuttal. "Have you ever gone into a dark corner of a bar and had sex with some one you have never even seen"?

It is gay behavior that reveals a "perverse and immoral character".

It is the Left that constantly tries to smear it's ideological opponents with that label.

And you just surrendered the point. Straights do it in the corner of dark bars and out in the alley. Thank you for outing your argument. Finally.

 

[Flash]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions but are more comfortable bring the peanut gallery that boos anyone's suggestions to do anything different than the status quo

Mass shooting are caused by deranged people. In a country of 320,000,000 people we are always going to have our nutcases and unfortunately occasionally some of these nuts will harm other people.

Depriving Americans of their Constitutional right to keep and bears will not do much to stop the crazies. For instance, none of the things President Shit for Brains called for after the Roseburg shooting would have stopped the shooter.

The Left has proven that they are incapable of any rational thought process when it comes to "reasonable gun regulations".

There are many examples but for instance, the SAFE Act was sold to the useful idiots in New York as being "reasonable" but recently a veteran had his firearms confiscated by the jackbooted thug police because he had reported to his doctor that he had a little insomnia. How "reasonable" is that? Both the McDonald and the Heller cases that were brought before the Supreme Court were examples of unreasonable government action on gun control.

The Constitution to the US gives the American people the right to keep and bear arms. Learn to live with it like I have learned to live with the fact the confused supreme court determined that a mother has the right to kill her child on demand and that results in the deaths of almost a million innocent American children each year.

Liberals don't really care about reasonable things to do to prevent gun crime. For instance, a couple of years ago the Democrats opposed the Grassley-Cruz Bill that would have done several substantive things to curb gun violence.

The agenda of the filthy ass Liberals in this country is to circumvent the Bill of Rights and turn America into an European type shithole where only the government and the crooks have access to firearms. No thank you but I will pass on that.