SO GLAD the Newtown Parents Are Coming Forward

[earlycuyler]

Why should I have to. The fact is, you can tell that slave rape was common just by the fact black people have about 30 different skin tones.

OMG - is this not the most offensive/racist statement in USMB history? So white people don't have different "skin tones" Joe? Asian people don't have different "skin tones" Joe?

You also can't help but laugh hysterically at Joe's idea of "facts". He perceives different skin tones so that means white slave owners "raped" black slaves - now there is some real science for you folks

Yep - no other possible explanation but rapes from 300+ years ago... Is this guy a completely unhinged nut-job or what?!?

Its from when the Mormon overlords had him in captivity.

 

[FA_Q2]

If present trends continue, by 2015, there will be more people in US killed by guns than by automobiles.

Far too many times in the past few years we have seen multiple people killed by a looney with a war weapon. For that is what the rapid fire semi-automatic weapons are.

Now we have a situation where, because of the NRA and other fruitloop organizations actions, we have a vast proliferation of these kinds of weapons in the general population. All too many of whom are not safe handling a single shot .22. The inevitable result is going to be more 'Sandy Hook' type of slaughters, and then the screaming of the people that created the situation that guns don't kill people.

Well, fruitloops, guns do kill people. That is what they are designed to do. And when you put them in the hands of the crazies they slaughter innocent children. As has been proven from coast to coast, and sundry point in between.

Who you quoting on those numbers of yours ?

Ditto, Homicide rates have been falling all over the nation. I find it hard to swallow that there is some overall trend that is going to take guns to the top killer anytime soon.

That usually includes suicides as well as though people will only commit suicide with a gun. It might be the most prevalent now but there is nothing that would suggest that complete and utter disappearance of guns would somehow lower the overall suicide rate.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, but background checks might be a good idea. Banning the mentally ill from buying a gun might be a better idea. But that violates your 2nd Amendment rights, doesn't it?

No..It does not.
The politically correct liberals do not want to go anywhere near the mental health issue when it comes to mass shootings.

How true...and I also wonder in how many of these rampages were these perpetrators on some powerful narcotic prescribed by some quack doctor. The politically correct nutbags cannot distinguish between a mentally disabled person and one who is a sociopath. They think the sociopaths will "fit" into society if we just control the meds. An institution is a better solution for a psycho. Lock them away and throw away the key.

Another good point that seems utterly overlooked. Many of these people were on prescriptions. There is a commonality that needs to be examined as crazy killers are going to kill no matter what. Taking the means only shifts it to something else. You need to attack the root, not the symptoms.

 

[FA_Q2]

Guy, pointing out things that don't support your gun-happy, racist world view are not "lies".

They are just things you don't like.

You know, like Science. And History. Anf Facts.

Tough things for Conservatards who spin their own reality, I know.

And yet everything you have said about Fast and Furious is either a bald faced lie or you are to stupid to get the facts.

Guy, the problem with arguing with conspiracy theorists is that nothing shakes their world view.

No matter how many times you prove it was a weather baloon, they will always insist it was a flying saucer.

Interestingly enough, the ‘conspiracy theorist’ here is you though throwing out all kinds of numbers and statistics with nary a link to back anything up at all. You have managed to provide ONE link that had nothing to do with the actual topic but instead was to back up your default whenever talking about this nation: founder bashing in a vain attempt to push your hate and bigotry onto others here.

Any link provided to you OTOH is immediately disregarded as you cling to presuppositions that we must accept solely because you said so.

 

[Darkwind]

What a bunch of fools and idiots.

And yes, I do mean that.

While I am sorry and I grieve with them at the loss of their children, that doesn't mean they have the right to demand that I lose my rights or have my rights further restricted.

More people are killed by cars and drunk drivers every year and I don't see them demanding that people turn in their cars because they "might" hurt someone with it.

Did you ever consider their rights as parents?

How about the rights of their children?


btw. Drinking driving is illegal, genius.

What the shooter did was illegal too.

Their rights as parents? That makes no sense at all. Their rights do NOT trump My rights.

 

[Darkwind]

Bayoubill -

Yes, shooting people is illegal. And yet (in many states) there are no background checks, no 'drivers licenses' for guns, no compulsory safety training, and no clear system of disarming offenders.

Cars have been made safer by the mandatory use of safety belts, tail lights and so forth. Unsafe cars have been taken off the streets, and unsafe drivers frequently banned from dirivng.

All most people want of gun owners is a similar sense of respect and social responsibility.

Car ownership is not a right. It also does not address the fact that you and the gun grabbers wish to punish the innocent.

 

[koshergrl]

What a bunch of fools and idiots.

And yes, I do mean that.

While I am sorry and I grieve with them at the loss of their children, that doesn't mean they have the right to demand that I lose my rights or have my rights further restricted.

More people are killed by cars and drunk drivers every year and I don't see them demanding that people turn in their cars because they "might" hurt someone with it.

Did you ever consider their rights as parents?

How about the rights of their children?


btw. Drinking driving is illegal, genius.

Their children have a RIGHT to be protected from crazy, criminal people who TARGET them.
That's what their children have a right to.

 

[koshergrl]

And ps...killing children is illegal. Yet it happens anyway.

Go figure.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If present trends continue, by 2015, there will be more people in US killed by guns than by automobiles.

Far too many times in the past few years we have seen multiple people killed by a looney with a war weapon. For that is what the rapid fire semi-automatic weapons are.

Now we have a situation where, because of the NRA and other fruitloop organizations actions, we have a vast proliferation of these kinds of weapons in the general population. All too many of whom are not safe handling a single shot .22. The inevitable result is going to be more 'Sandy Hook' type of slaughters, and then the screaming of the people that created the situation that guns don't kill people.

Well, fruitloops, guns do kill people. That is what they are designed to do. And when you put them in the hands of the crazies they slaughter innocent children. As has been proven from coast to coast, and sundry point in between.

And yet absolutely no evidence that mass shootings are increasing in frequency or the body count is any higher. Go figure.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The fact that someone owns a gun has nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of children. Try, try to get that through your thick head. If you want to do something for those children, donate to a memorial fund, or help another child in his or her name. Don't use the tragedy as a vehicle for advancing your ridiculous policies.

It makes you look craven.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Do you actually concede that Jefferson did Rape his Slave?

Do you concede you actually have no argument against gun rights?

No, I've made my case quite clearly.

1) The Second Amendment was about Militias, not guns.

2) The reason you whacks give for wanting guns- that you need to defend yourselves against all the scary criminals- is undermined by the fact a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

3) The other reason you whacks give- that you might have to fight the mean old Gummit, is destroyed by the fact they have tanks, planes, artilery and nukes.

You haven't been making a case at all, Joe, you've been obsessing over slave rapists. Don't give me that 43 times line, you know that's been debunked.

1. You ignore the second half of the clause. "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." THE PEOPLE.

2. My father is a gun owner, not once did he feel compelled to kill me or any other member of my family.

3. What you fail to understand is that there are reasonable limits to the 2nd Amendment, such as restrictions of tanks, planes, artillery and nuclear weapons. You have nothing more than feeble arguments.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

No, I've made my case quite clearly.

1) The Second Amendment was about Militias, not guns.

2) The reason you whacks give for wanting guns- that you need to defend yourselves against all the scary criminals- is undermined by the fact a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

3) The other reason you whacks give- that you might have to fight the mean old Gummit, is destroyed by the fact they have tanks, planes, artilery and nukes.

1. if all other amendments apply to individuals so does the 2nd

2. it's no one's business why someone wants a gun. Wanting one is reason enough

3. see above

The second clearly calls for Well Regulated Militias. Case closed.

It is my business if that gun is a danger to others.

It falls to the people to regulate the militia. Case closed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What a bunch of fools and idiots.

And yes, I do mean that.

While I am sorry and I grieve with them at the loss of their children, that doesn't mean they have the right to demand that I lose my rights or have my rights further restricted.

More people are killed by cars and drunk drivers every year and I don't see them demanding that people turn in their cars because they "might" hurt someone with it.

Did you ever consider their rights as parents?

How about the rights of their children?


btw. Drinking driving is illegal, genius.

Their children have a RIGHT to be protected from crazy, criminal people who TARGET them.
That's what their children have a right to.

That's the thing with pro-choice/anti-gun Liberals, they think children are expendable, for the sake of their almighty agenda.

 

[tjvh]

Ya cause after all Millions upon millions of law abiding citizens should loss their rights cause a crazy killed some kids.

No, but background checks might be a good idea. Banning the mentally ill from buying a gun might be a better idea. But that violates your 2nd Amendment rights, doesn't it?

We already have background checks. You don't keep the mentally ill from getting guns by violating the rights of law abiding citizens, come on... This isn't too hard.

 

[tjvh]

Bayoubill -

Yes, shooting people is illegal. And yet (in many states) there are no background checks, no 'drivers licenses' for guns, no compulsory safety training, and no clear system of disarming offenders.

Cars have been made safer by the mandatory use of safety belts, tail lights and so forth. Unsafe cars have been taken off the streets, and unsafe drivers frequently banned from dirivng.

All most people want of gun owners is a similar sense of respect and social responsibility.

Car ownership is not a right. It also does not address the fact that you and the gun grabbers wish to punish the innocent.

And it certainly doesn't change the fact that cars do indeed continue to kill people. Gun grabbers are nuts.

 

[whitehall]

Does the left think the people who "cling to their guns and religion" are responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook? Since every mass shooter in recent history was a left winger or a member of the democrat party we could make a case that there is something terribly wrong with liberalism.

 

[martybegan]

1. if all other amendments apply to individuals so does the 2nd

2. it's no one's business why someone wants a gun. Wanting one is reason enough

3. see above

The second clearly calls for Well Regulated Militias. Case closed.

It is my business if that gun is a danger to others.

It falls to the people to regulate the militia. Case closed.

Again, its the responsibility of the state (i.e. NY) to regulate its milita, the PEOPLE still keep the right to keep and bear arms.

If NY doesnt feel like regulating or calling up its own unorganized milita, that does not impact the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Perhaps the Department of Justice will send drones out to the ranch to see whats been going on?? But, let's be very, very clear about this.

I own guns. Handguns, shotguns, rifles and some that are classified as assault weapons. I have thousands of rounds of ammunition and I also have a concealed-carry permit. When I'm in my truck on the ranch I always have a 45 Colt Double Eagle, a .308 with scope and the civilian version of an M-4 with a mounted tactical light. You probably wouldn't be able to catch me without one within arms reach at any time regardless of whether I'm on the ranch or not.

At no time will I allow any government to tell me that I can/cannot own guns. You can pass all the laws you want. You can outlaw 20 and 30 round magazines and I'll make my own or buy them from someone who makes them close by. You can outlaw my 'assault weapon' and I will keep it hidden until I need it. Same goes for the rifle, the shotgun and my handgun.

The right to bear arms, like my freedom of speech and my freedom of religion was given to me by my creator. You cannot take it away, I don't care what you do. If you want a fight, you can have it. But like most liberals, you will try to have someone else enforce it.

To quote a liberal friend of mine on this forum, "It really is that simple..."

 

[koshergrl]

Perhaps the Department of Justice will send drones out to the ranch to see whats been going on?? But, let's be very, very clear about this.

I own guns. Handguns, shotguns, rifles and some that are classified as assault weapons. I have thousands of rounds of ammunition and I also have a concealed-carry permit. When I'm in my truck on the ranch I always have a 45 Colt Double Eagle, a .308 with scope and the civilian version of an M-4 with a mounted tactical light. You probably wouldn't be able to catch me without one within arms reach at any time regardless of whether I'm on the ranch or not.

At no time will I allow any government to tell me that I can/cannot own guns. You can pass all the laws you want. You can outlaw 20 and 30 round magazines and I'll make my own or buy them from someone who makes them close by. You can outlaw my 'assault weapon' and I will keep it hidden until I need it. Same goes for the rifle, the shotgun and my handgun.

The right to bear arms, like my freedom of speech and my freedom of religion was given to me by my creator. You cannot take it away, I don't care what you do. If you want a fight, you can have it. But like most liberals, you will try to have someone else enforce it.

To quote a liberal friend of mine on this forum, "It really is that simple..."

This is where a sunken-chested limp wristed pantywaist says "you think you have the ability to hold out against government TANKS and soldiers?"

Which is of course their fave wetdream...mowing down US homesteads using US equipment.

 

[hunarcy]

1. if all other amendments apply to individuals so does the 2nd

2. it's no one's business why someone wants a gun. Wanting one is reason enough

3. see above

The second clearly calls for Well Regulated Militias. Case closed.

It is my business if that gun is a danger to others.

the courts have already decided that the 2nd applies to individuals

CASE CLOSED

PS who the fuck are you to decide anything

He's a troll who can't understand that it says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That's why the Supreme Court ruled it was an individual right and that's what he has to ignore to keep trolling. He's on my ignore list.