Republicans Response to Colorado Shooting: Cant do nothing

[daveman]

Says one of the scared little people who needs a gun to feel manly.

Why does it annoy you that innocent people protect themselves and their families? Are you afraid criminals are going to be put out of business? Do you think it's morally superior to be a victim?

Do you think at all?

It annoys me that people think that more guns is the solution to the gun problem.

Your annoyance has absolutely no affect on me.

Why are you afraid to answer my questions?

 

[NoNukes]

Why does it annoy you that innocent people protect themselves and their families? Are you afraid criminals are going to be put out of business? Do you think it's morally superior to be a victim?

Do you think at all?

It annoys me that people think that more guns is the solution to the gun problem.

Your annoyance has absolutely no affect on me.

Why are you afraid to answer my questions?

Answering stupid questions is a waste of time.

 

[NoNukes]

So why are you ignoring the fact that when CCW goes up, crime goes down?

I have chosen not to raise my family in a place where people get comfort from such statisics. I have not ignored them.

You refuse to learn anything from them.

I learned that there is a better place to raise my children, a place where people do not have to be armed to feel safe. A place where people barely believe that what they hear about the gun culture in America could really exist because it sounds just too ridiculous.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The question was to how to mitigate the catastrophe. Since 6 is less than 7; it is a mitigation; not acceptable. I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

Then innocent people would have clubs, and criminals would still have guns.

Why do you want to make it easier for criminals to victimize people?

Most Americans do not have guns.

October 26, 2011
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

It's neck and neck...

 

[NoNukes]

And next you will be saying that the United States is the greatest country in the world, as long as you have enough firearms to protect yourself.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And next you will be saying that the United States is the greatest country in the world, as long as you have enough firearms to protect yourself.

#2 on our countdown of Constitutional protections.

 

[GuyPinestra]

And next you will be saying that the United States is the greatest country in the world, as long as you have enough firearms to protect yourself.

No, next I'll be saying that you don't know your asshole from your elbow, and that your chickenshit ass has run away from the other thread where you're getting spanked like a red-headed stepchild.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ignoring the facts is a lot of the problem.

Yet you guys live in fear with a camera on every corner.

Says one of the scared little people who needs a gun to feel manly.

I bet you think is is original, meaningful and persuasive.

 

[bodecea]

We know one thing for sure. A democrat administration authorized the shipment of 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexico in a convoluted plan that a kid in police rookie school would see as a likely failure and what did they do when the plan failed? They circled the wagons and refused to comply with a congressional investigation. Put the attorney general on trial for negligent homicide and then we will talk about it.

This has WHAT to do with the Aurora shooting?

 

[Oddball]

There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

Once again showing the deep problem with lolberals:

Their answer to every problem (real or imagined) is mo gubmint.

 

[NoNukes]

And next you will be saying that the United States is the greatest country in the world, as long as you have enough firearms to protect yourself.

No, next I'll be saying that you don't know your asshole from your elbow, and that your chickenshit ass has run away from the other thread where you're getting spanked like a red-headed stepchild.

In other words, you have no intelligent reply because I am right. You are really pathetic, and everyone can see it here in black and White.

 

[candycorn]

The problem with this entire premise is that it so flies in the face of our constitutional liberties.

As alluded to in my signature, the founders and the political philosophers they studied accepted the fact that man is inherently evil or at the very least possesses the propensity to commit evil.

Now let's just stop right there for a minute. Imagine if you can true and utter freedom. Freedom can be scary and even quite dangerous especially considering the fact that man IS capable of evil. How is it possible to restrain, regulate or restrict "FREE" people in such a way that bad things never occur due to human negligence or malice, while allowing those who make conscious decisions on a constant basis to NOT act like criminals to remain TRULY FREE? It simply can't be done.

Therefore, knowing the nature of man and what he is capable of and motivated by a desire to create a new level of personal freedom unparalleled in human history, our founders accepted the risks but provide "We The People" with several means by which to address the problem.
They gave us our legislature through which criminal acts are defined and deterrents to the worst of human nature are implemented. They gave us a judicial system through which the ultimate decisions on how to handle criminals as well as punitive measures by which to deal with criminals are administered. They gave us our Constitution which lays out our personal rights and liberties and is RIDICULOUSLY EXPLICIT in its intent to restrain government, leaving it with little more responsibility than to ensure the rights of the people are upheld and to provide a few very specific services. And within that constitution, second only to the amendment ensuring the fundamental freedom to speak freely, they gave us the right to keep and bear arms in the shortest and most concise amendment of them all.
I could go on all night on the context in which the second amendment was written and all the evidence from the Federalist Papers to back up the simple interpretation of the amendment but I’ll assume most are familiar with the events just 12 years prior to the penning of The Constitution and the factors that motivated the founders. It’s also worth noting for the “right to hunt” crowd that nowhere in The Constitution did the founders refer to details pertaining to growing crops, hunting or any other form of self provision as the sweeping freedoms intended to aid us in our “pursuit of happiness” cover all that.

The bottom line is, anti-constitutional infringements will not cure men of the tendency to victimize one another. They will however produce an environment the founders foresaw and feared, one in which the government is infinitely more powerful and fearless of the people.

Yes as if the armaments of the Army, Navy, and Air force and Marines isn't already there.

Your post is silly.

 

[IGetItAlready]

The problem with this entire premise is that it so flies in the face of our constitutional liberties.

As alluded to in my signature, the founders and the political philosophers they studied accepted the fact that man is inherently evil or at the very least possesses the propensity to commit evil.

Now let's just stop right there for a minute. Imagine if you can true and utter freedom. Freedom can be scary and even quite dangerous especially considering the fact that man IS capable of evil. How is it possible to restrain, regulate or restrict "FREE" people in such a way that bad things never occur due to human negligence or malice, while allowing those who make conscious decisions on a constant basis to NOT act like criminals to remain TRULY FREE? It simply can't be done.

Therefore, knowing the nature of man and what he is capable of and motivated by a desire to create a new level of personal freedom unparalleled in human history, our founders accepted the risks but provide "We The People" with several means by which to address the problem.
They gave us our legislature through which criminal acts are defined and deterrents to the worst of human nature are implemented. They gave us a judicial system through which the ultimate decisions on how to handle criminals as well as punitive measures by which to deal with criminals are administered. They gave us our Constitution which lays out our personal rights and liberties and is RIDICULOUSLY EXPLICIT in its intent to restrain government, leaving it with little more responsibility than to ensure the rights of the people are upheld and to provide a few very specific services. And within that constitution, second only to the amendment ensuring the fundamental freedom to speak freely, they gave us the right to keep and bear arms in the shortest and most concise amendment of them all.
I could go on all night on the context in which the second amendment was written and all the evidence from the Federalist Papers to back up the simple interpretation of the amendment but I’ll assume most are familiar with the events just 12 years prior to the penning of The Constitution and the factors that motivated the founders. It’s also worth noting for the “right to hunt” crowd that nowhere in The Constitution did the founders refer to details pertaining to growing crops, hunting or any other form of self provision as the sweeping freedoms intended to aid us in our “pursuit of happiness” cover all that.

The bottom line is, anti-constitutional infringements will not cure men of the tendency to victimize one another. They will however produce an environment the founders foresaw and feared, one in which the government is infinitely more powerful and fearless of the people.

Yes as if the armaments of the Army, Navy, and Air force and Marines isn't already there.

Your post is silly.

It's not silly at all. I think expecting you can control people with a bunch of rules or laws that those you're attempting to influence WILL NOT FOLLOW ANYWAY is criminally stupid.

 

[Full-Auto]

If you're watching this "advanced" society operate under a 200+ y/o constitution from another planet, you wouldn't think we're advanced at all...except compared to a lot of other cultures.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And it ain't broke.

Pretty much sums up how bizarrely head-up-the-ass the conservatives are.

Twelve people get mowed down, twelve families that will never be the same again; dozens more injured and hundreds terrorized by this...

And the response is "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

So you dont have a proposal.. Just loose lips.........THE SHOCK.............

 

[candycorn]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And it ain't broke.

Pretty much sums up how bizarrely head-up-the-ass the conservatives are.

Twelve people get mowed down, twelve families that will never be the same again; dozens more injured and hundreds terrorized by this...

And the response is "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

So you dont have a proposal.. Just loose lips.........THE SHOCK.............

Yes limiting the size of clips and magazines--proposed on something like page one. You didn't do any reading before posting. . Indeed, the shock.

 

[candycorn]

The problem with this entire premise is that it so flies in the face of our constitutional liberties.

As alluded to in my signature, the founders and the political philosophers they studied accepted the fact that man is inherently evil or at the very least possesses the propensity to commit evil.

Now let's just stop right there for a minute. Imagine if you can true and utter freedom. Freedom can be scary and even quite dangerous especially considering the fact that man IS capable of evil. How is it possible to restrain, regulate or restrict "FREE" people in such a way that bad things never occur due to human negligence or malice, while allowing those who make conscious decisions on a constant basis to NOT act like criminals to remain TRULY FREE? It simply can't be done.

Therefore, knowing the nature of man and what he is capable of and motivated by a desire to create a new level of personal freedom unparalleled in human history, our founders accepted the risks but provide "We The People" with several means by which to address the problem.
They gave us our legislature through which criminal acts are defined and deterrents to the worst of human nature are implemented. They gave us a judicial system through which the ultimate decisions on how to handle criminals as well as punitive measures by which to deal with criminals are administered. They gave us our Constitution which lays out our personal rights and liberties and is RIDICULOUSLY EXPLICIT in its intent to restrain government, leaving it with little more responsibility than to ensure the rights of the people are upheld and to provide a few very specific services. And within that constitution, second only to the amendment ensuring the fundamental freedom to speak freely, they gave us the right to keep and bear arms in the shortest and most concise amendment of them all.
I could go on all night on the context in which the second amendment was written and all the evidence from the Federalist Papers to back up the simple interpretation of the amendment but I’ll assume most are familiar with the events just 12 years prior to the penning of The Constitution and the factors that motivated the founders. It’s also worth noting for the “right to hunt” crowd that nowhere in The Constitution did the founders refer to details pertaining to growing crops, hunting or any other form of self provision as the sweeping freedoms intended to aid us in our “pursuit of happiness” cover all that.

The bottom line is, anti-constitutional infringements will not cure men of the tendency to victimize one another. They will however produce an environment the founders foresaw and feared, one in which the government is infinitely more powerful and fearless of the people.

Yes as if the armaments of the Army, Navy, and Air force and Marines isn't already there.

Your post is silly.

It's not silly at all. I think expecting you can people with a bunch of rules or laws that those you're attempting to influence WILL NOT FOLLOW ANYWAY is criminally stupid.

For the third time...

If you stop selling high cap mags, you do not prevent a criminal bent on doing what this guy in colorado allegedly did. That is true. That point has been conceeded over and over.

What you do accomplish is this. Eventually, you dry up the supply. It may take a generation or two but eventually, the demand will be dried up considerably. Driving the price up--you remember supply and demand, do you not? I'm guessing you never learned it to begin with.

So when there is a gun crazed lunatic in the year 2050 who might not be able to afford to buy a 100 round clip on the black market, those guys watching Batman XXXIV or whatever number we're at when it premiers can breathe just a bit easier.

Sure, we could all just agree on the fact that it was an amendment written before there were zippers, acne cream, street lights, electricity, at a time when the very nation's existence was under fire and modify it to, at least, the 19th century mentality but of course, the gun nuts have to insist that they need belt-fed weapons to feel safe.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Sure, we could all just agree on the fact that it was an amendment written before there were zippers, acne cream, street lights, electricity, at a time when the very nation's existence was under fire and modify it to, at least, the 19th century mentality but of course, the gun nuts have to insist that they need belt-fed weapons to feel safe.

SCOTUS and state incorporation of Heller Vs DC.
Common use.

 

[Full-Auto]

Pretty much sums up how bizarrely head-up-the-ass the conservatives are.

Twelve people get mowed down, twelve families that will never be the same again; dozens more injured and hundreds terrorized by this...

And the response is "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

So you dont have a proposal.. Just loose lips.........THE SHOCK.............

Yes limiting the size of clips and magazines--proposed on something like page one. You didn't do any reading before posting. . Indeed, the shock.

That doesnt reduce crime.

So you have nothing meaningful. Shock me again...........

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

Once again showing the deep problem with lolberals:

Their answer to every problem (real or imagined) is mo gubmint.

Yep the same government who allowed firearms to cross over the border into the control of the Mexican drug cartel. Should the government be trusted with firearms anymore or should the citizens ban the government access to firearms?

 

[buckeye45_73]

The problem with this entire premise is that it so flies in the face of our constitutional liberties.

As alluded to in my signature, the founders and the political philosophers they studied accepted the fact that man is inherently evil or at the very least possesses the propensity to commit evil.

Now let's just stop right there for a minute. Imagine if you can true and utter freedom. Freedom can be scary and even quite dangerous especially considering the fact that man IS capable of evil. How is it possible to restrain, regulate or restrict "FREE" people in such a way that bad things never occur due to human negligence or malice, while allowing those who make conscious decisions on a constant basis to NOT act like criminals to remain TRULY FREE? It simply can't be done.

Therefore, knowing the nature of man and what he is capable of and motivated by a desire to create a new level of personal freedom unparalleled in human history, our founders accepted the risks but provide "We The People" with several means by which to address the problem.
They gave us our legislature through which criminal acts are defined and deterrents to the worst of human nature are implemented. They gave us a judicial system through which the ultimate decisions on how to handle criminals as well as punitive measures by which to deal with criminals are administered. They gave us our Constitution which lays out our personal rights and liberties and is RIDICULOUSLY EXPLICIT in its intent to restrain government, leaving it with little more responsibility than to ensure the rights of the people are upheld and to provide a few very specific services. And within that constitution, second only to the amendment ensuring the fundamental freedom to speak freely, they gave us the right to keep and bear arms in the shortest and most concise amendment of them all.
I could go on all night on the context in which the second amendment was written and all the evidence from the Federalist Papers to back up the simple interpretation of the amendment but I’ll assume most are familiar with the events just 12 years prior to the penning of The Constitution and the factors that motivated the founders. It’s also worth noting for the “right to hunt” crowd that nowhere in The Constitution did the founders refer to details pertaining to growing crops, hunting or any other form of self provision as the sweeping freedoms intended to aid us in our “pursuit of happiness” cover all that.

The bottom line is, anti-constitutional infringements will not cure men of the tendency to victimize one another. They will however produce an environment the founders foresaw and feared, one in which the government is infinitely more powerful and fearless of the people.

Yes as if the armaments of the Army, Navy, and Air force and Marines isn't already there.

Your post is silly.

The point of the 2nd amendment is not from protection of foreign invaders, when Lexington and Concord occured the British were not foreigners and they went straight after the guns, why???????? It doesnt take a genius to figure it out, but they failed and THANK GOD
The 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to rebell against the government and to protect themselves against government intrusion..