This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[iceberg]

where did i say this?

Cut the shit.

You just wrote this

you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

did i say where? but then again if on private land no i don't need a license so that wouldn't work either.

before we start wordsmtihing around, no. the "right" to drive a car, fly in a plane, and may other things also *NOT* specified in the constitution are still rights we share by paying taxes on these services.

if you are *only* going to say the rights spelled out in the constitution are all we have great. we can get literal there as well and pretend that we still live in 1776 and only go by what was said at the time.

wanna go there next?

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

No...but there is a process to change the Constitution.....you can add or subtract Rights using that method.

didn't say what methods i'd use, just what i'd like to do. all of it is open for discussion sure. but most people pro-gun just say NO and walk away behind the 2nd amendment.

we can either address the problem together or we can keep ignoring it til a hand is forced. one or the other is likely to happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, my only point is that the United States spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world, yet we are only mediocre in results to show for it.

So tell me, where is this lack of education you speak of? Because if you took an entire school of low income kids, sent them to a suburban school, and did the reverse with the suburban school kids, you wouldn't see much of a change.

It's less the education than it is the people there for the education. When our suburb was white, we had the highest performance results in the county, now that it's black, we have one of the lowest.

So what changed? What changed is the family structure. The school buildings are not the same, in fact, we built all new schools several years ago. Our teachers are still paid well. Every levy passes. It's not the educational system.

Like I said, families play a part, but you can’t legislate the ways families act. We can improve our education and community programs, those also play a role.

And what do you mean by "improve" our education? Such as what????

If you mean keep throwing more money at the problem, that's been a proven failure.

We've seen this huge public push (mostly by the Democrats) to stop bullying, to accept gays, to stop smoking, stop taking drugs, to eat more healthy, yet we've never seen any push by the Democrats that promote the family unit; to stress the importance of a two-parent family.

Correct, we cannot force personal decisions on people, but we can constantly remind people of the failures single-parent families experience all the time. Because if we can make improvements there, it will do ten times more good than improving community programs or throwing more money into schools.

The government should provide free reruns of "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver" to every school in the nation, and require testing of students as to whether or not Harriet should serve chocolate, or vanilla ice cream after dinner, and whether or not June should vacuum in high heels or flats.

Correct, because Ozzie and Harriet was such a bad example for our kids. No wonder they were so wild back then.

Hey! I got a local video today of a high-speed police chase with a 10 year old kid that stole a car. Do you think there are any episodes of that on Ozzie?

And those shows were so realistic, too!!

But, while we are on the subject, the REAL Ozzie was a tyrant and workaholic, who was so controlling of his family that Ricki was never allowed by Ozzie to make a public appearance as a singer as long as he appeared on Ozzie's show. Ricki was a druggy by the time he was 23, and was unable to hold his own wife and kids together in real life. Their divorce was especially messy, and involved trickle down grief to ozzie's grandkids. as for ozzie, he worked himself to death, writing, producing, directing, and starring in the show. Harriett was not allowed to play any significant role in the show, other than ask if the family wanted ice cream after dinner. David bailed out as soon as he was old enough to escape. Ricki got his first piece of ass in a French whorehouse when he was 15 or 16.

So what? It was a television series, not a program about their personal lives. Outside of David Cassidy, the rest of the Partridge Family didn't play any instruments either. Henry Winkler, the actor that played The Fonz on Happy Days isn't even Italian. He's Jewish.

Besides, you were the one that equated Ozzie and Harriet with my suggestion that we promote two-parent families--not me. I think single-parent families are responsible for a lot of dysfunctional people in our society today.

 

[2aguy]

Cut the shit.

You just wrote this

you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

did i say where? but then again if on private land no i don't need a license so that wouldn't work either.

before we start wordsmtihing around, no. the "right" to drive a car, fly in a plane, and may other things also *NOT* specified in the constitution are still rights we share by paying taxes on these services.

if you are *only* going to say the rights spelled out in the constitution are all we have great. we can get literal there as well and pretend that we still live in 1776 and only go by what was said at the time.

wanna go there next?

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

No...but there is a process to change the Constitution.....you can add or subtract Rights using that method.

didn't say what methods i'd use, just what i'd like to do. all of it is open for discussion sure. but most people pro-gun just say NO and walk away behind the 2nd amendment.

we can either address the problem together or we can keep ignoring it til a hand is forced. one or the other is likely to happen.

I gave my solutions...they work, they focus on actual criminals, the require no new paperwork, and they don't target law abiding gun owners....they don't need new background checks, gun registration to work.......

 

[iceberg]

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

except that if we keep going the way we are, we may not have a choice in the matter. and if you let your license expire yes, you will be tested again. forgive me that some analogies don't become all encompassing.

like i said, i'm 100% against more laws. we know they do nothing to stop the crime. but i'm not for sitting around waiting for people to get tired of killing each other. this is a potential option, not an end all be all and certainly i've never said WE MUST DO THIS. it's just an idea to try and address what does happen to be a problem, whether you like it or not.

in the end we do need to overhaul the background check system at a minimum. i'd also love to see education become a part of the process but no, i can't force that. no one *should* be able to. but then what?

i miss the times you could carry a shotgun on a rack in the back window of your truck and no one looked twice. something changed along the way and doing nothing is becoming less and less of an option despite many people wanting just that.

The only thing we need to do is put gun criminals...actual gun criminals....in jail for 30 years....and violent felons caught with guns should go away for 30 years too.....that is how you solve the actual problem...without bothering law abiding people.

if we start there i'd not disagree at all. the problem becomes paying for it. then again, you're here 30 years, you're now in a labor camp. don't want to be here, don't use guns.

follow through on a few dozen of those to set the tone and a lot of this would calm down. i *do* agree with you there.

 

[2aguy]

Like I said, families play a part, but you can’t legislate the ways families act. We can improve our education and community programs, those also play a role.

And what do you mean by "improve" our education? Such as what????

If you mean keep throwing more money at the problem, that's been a proven failure.

We've seen this huge public push (mostly by the Democrats) to stop bullying, to accept gays, to stop smoking, stop taking drugs, to eat more healthy, yet we've never seen any push by the Democrats that promote the family unit; to stress the importance of a two-parent family.

Correct, we cannot force personal decisions on people, but we can constantly remind people of the failures single-parent families experience all the time. Because if we can make improvements there, it will do ten times more good than improving community programs or throwing more money into schools.

The government should provide free reruns of "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver" to every school in the nation, and require testing of students as to whether or not Harriet should serve chocolate, or vanilla ice cream after dinner, and whether or not June should vacuum in high heels or flats.

Correct, because Ozzie and Harriet was such a bad example for our kids. No wonder they were so wild back then.

Hey! I got a local video today of a high-speed police chase with a 10 year old kid that stole a car. Do you think there are any episodes of that on Ozzie?

And those shows were so realistic, too!!

But, while we are on the subject, the REAL Ozzie was a tyrant and workaholic, who was so controlling of his family that Ricki was never allowed by Ozzie to make a public appearance as a singer as long as he appeared on Ozzie's show. Ricki was a druggy by the time he was 23, and was unable to hold his own wife and kids together in real life. Their divorce was especially messy, and involved trickle down grief to ozzie's grandkids. as for ozzie, he worked himself to death, writing, producing, directing, and starring in the show. Harriett was not allowed to play any significant role in the show, other than ask if the family wanted ice cream after dinner. David bailed out as soon as he was old enough to escape. Ricki got his first piece of ass in a French whorehouse when he was 15 or 16.

So what? It was a television series, not a program about their personal lives. Outside of David Cassidy, the rest of the Partridge Family didn't play any instruments either. Henry Winkler, the actor that played The Fonz on Happy Days isn't even Italian. He's Jewish.

Besides, you were the one that equated Ozzie and Harriet with my suggestion that we promote two-parent families--not me. I think single-parent families are responsible for a lot of dysfunctional people in our society today.

Yeah....do a survey of criminals in prison and find out how many came from single parent homes, run by a teenage girl....

 

[2aguy]

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

except that if we keep going the way we are, we may not have a choice in the matter. and if you let your license expire yes, you will be tested again. forgive me that some analogies don't become all encompassing.

like i said, i'm 100% against more laws. we know they do nothing to stop the crime. but i'm not for sitting around waiting for people to get tired of killing each other. this is a potential option, not an end all be all and certainly i've never said WE MUST DO THIS. it's just an idea to try and address what does happen to be a problem, whether you like it or not.

in the end we do need to overhaul the background check system at a minimum. i'd also love to see education become a part of the process but no, i can't force that. no one *should* be able to. but then what?

i miss the times you could carry a shotgun on a rack in the back window of your truck and no one looked twice. something changed along the way and doing nothing is becoming less and less of an option despite many people wanting just that.

The only thing we need to do is put gun criminals...actual gun criminals....in jail for 30 years....and violent felons caught with guns should go away for 30 years too.....that is how you solve the actual problem...without bothering law abiding people.

if we start there i'd not disagree at all. the problem becomes paying for it. then again, you're here 30 years, you're now in a labor camp. don't want to be here, don't use guns.

follow through on a few dozen of those to set the tone and a lot of this would calm down. i *do* agree with you there.

Keeping violent criminals in prison pays for itself....they cost us more when they are running loose...

 

[iceberg]

did i say where? but then again if on private land no i don't need a license so that wouldn't work either.

before we start wordsmtihing around, no. the "right" to drive a car, fly in a plane, and may other things also *NOT* specified in the constitution are still rights we share by paying taxes on these services.

if you are *only* going to say the rights spelled out in the constitution are all we have great. we can get literal there as well and pretend that we still live in 1776 and only go by what was said at the time.

wanna go there next?

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

No...but there is a process to change the Constitution.....you can add or subtract Rights using that method.

didn't say what methods i'd use, just what i'd like to do. all of it is open for discussion sure. but most people pro-gun just say NO and walk away behind the 2nd amendment.

we can either address the problem together or we can keep ignoring it til a hand is forced. one or the other is likely to happen.

I gave my solutions...they work, they focus on actual criminals, the require no new paperwork, and they don't target law abiding gun owners....they don't need new background checks, gun registration to work.......

and i'd take that as a starting point also. easy.

i just don't think it will ever be *that easy* unfortunately. and when you have mental people who know they're gonna die when done, now what?

some questions just don't have "good" answers and that is the hardest part to understand.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

They have murdered 89 people and wounded 450 with a rental truck.....which only required a french drivers license and some cash.....

A license is a Literacy Test on the Right to self defense, and any fee to own or carry a gun is the equivalent of a Poll Tax....and both of those were unConstitutional for voting...and should be ruled the same for the 2nd Amendment.

and this would be why it will never change.

people are not even open to it.

now all the PRO GUN people think i'm out to get guns.

no we are not open to it

we are not about to ask permission for a right

so to be blunt

you can go fuck yourself on that

 

[iceberg]

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

They have murdered 89 people and wounded 450 with a rental truck.....which only required a french drivers license and some cash.....

A license is a Literacy Test on the Right to self defense, and any fee to own or carry a gun is the equivalent of a Poll Tax....and both of those were unConstitutional for voting...and should be ruled the same for the 2nd Amendment.

and this would be why it will never change.

people are not even open to it.

now all the PRO GUN people think i'm out to get guns.

no we are not open to it

we are not about to ask permission for a right

so to be blunt

you can go fuck yourself on that

i'll bet you think i don't even own any guns.

if you don't want to talk about it, feel free to drop out of a thread talking about it.

 

[2aguy]

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

No...but there is a process to change the Constitution.....you can add or subtract Rights using that method.

didn't say what methods i'd use, just what i'd like to do. all of it is open for discussion sure. but most people pro-gun just say NO and walk away behind the 2nd amendment.

we can either address the problem together or we can keep ignoring it til a hand is forced. one or the other is likely to happen.

I gave my solutions...they work, they focus on actual criminals, the require no new paperwork, and they don't target law abiding gun owners....they don't need new background checks, gun registration to work.......

and i'd take that as a starting point also. easy.

i just don't think it will ever be *that easy* unfortunately. and when you have mental people who know they're gonna die when done, now what?

some questions just don't have "good" answers and that is the hardest part to understand.

You can't stop mass shooters by going after law abiding gun owners....

The police knew about the Sandy Hook shooter's threats to kill teachers and students before it happened.....that was the problem.......

Have you seen the coverage of the new FBI report on Sandy Hook?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

 

[iceberg]

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

No...but there is a process to change the Constitution.....you can add or subtract Rights using that method.

didn't say what methods i'd use, just what i'd like to do. all of it is open for discussion sure. but most people pro-gun just say NO and walk away behind the 2nd amendment.

we can either address the problem together or we can keep ignoring it til a hand is forced. one or the other is likely to happen.

I gave my solutions...they work, they focus on actual criminals, the require no new paperwork, and they don't target law abiding gun owners....they don't need new background checks, gun registration to work.......

and i'd take that as a starting point also. easy.

i just don't think it will ever be *that easy* unfortunately. and when you have mental people who know they're gonna die when done, now what?

some questions just don't have "good" answers and that is the hardest part to understand.

You can't stop mass shooters by going after law abiding gun owners....

The police knew about the Sandy Hook shooter's threats to kill teachers and students before it happened.....that was the problem.......

Have you seen the coverage of the new FBI report on Sandy Hook?

nope. have not. link me and i'll be glad to read up on it.

 

[iceberg]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

and yep. i do agree that is a large part of why there is ZERO give from the gun side.

1) liberals don't know what they want to ban. if it looks scary, ban it. trouble is, they never define "Scary" and when they do, it changes to fit their mood.
2) they have zero knowledge that an AR15 is NOT an automatic weapon. hell, it wasn't even an "assault rifle" until liberals forces changing the meaning of words so they could be "right"
3) i don't trust obama for shit - when you say green tipped 223 is armor piercing you just told anyone with any knowledge at all what a fucktard you are. it's was all "if i cant get the gun i'll get the bullets" and nothing more.

so i do agree that if you want "common sense gun talk" you usually have to leave liberals out of it.

guess that just paints us into a corner and is what can be frustrating to me.

 

[DrLove]

Can't believe that they let you RW snowflakes post such personal attacks & name calling ..

But it is what it is and as my black friend in SoCal said some 30 years ago when i was supervisor at a home for trash can kids -

Everything is Everything!

 

[Brain357]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

No major cities obviously. Not much crime with few people.

 

[Brain357]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

 

[2aguy]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Don't forget...they also want to control the sex education curriculum for kids as young as kindergarten.....and they are also pushing to allow young children to take hormones to stop their biological sex changes at puberty........and pushing to let them have surgery to change their physical sex characteristics.....

As to what we avoided when hilary lost.....wow...just wow...I can't even think about her having won...

 

[2aguy]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

He appointed the judges who are going to do it for him...he didn't want to lose elections because of the gun control issue...so he back doored the gun control agenda using judges and justices...

 

[iceberg]

Can't believe that they let you RW snowflakes post such personal attacks & name calling ..

But it is what it is and as my black friend in SoCal said some 30 years ago when i was supervisor at a home for trash can kids -

Everything is Everything!

funny.

except to have all this happen the LW snowflakes had to:
WAH - blacks are under represented in commercials!
WAH - they won't bake my gaycakes and i don't care there's another baker right down the road WAH
WAH - women are under represented in movies
WAH - we're tired of christmas on everything WAH

so if the ass-tard liberals would stop demonizing white men and traditional holidays we enjoy then we'd not have to WAH back so they understand.

then again if they'd grow up we'd not have to WAH back cause they'd quit asking for stupid shit and just go work for a living in an unfair world we all gotta figure out.

 

[Brain357]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

and yep. i do agree that is a large part of why there is ZERO give from the gun side.

1) liberals don't know what they want to ban. if it looks scary, ban it. trouble is, they never define "Scary" and when they do, it changes to fit their mood.
2) they have zero knowledge that an AR15 is NOT an automatic weapon. hell, it wasn't even an "assault rifle" until liberals forces changing the meaning of words so they could be "right"
3) i don't trust obama for shit - when you say green tipped 223 is armor piercing you just told anyone with any knowledge at all what a fucktard you are. it's was all "if i cant get the gun i'll get the bullets" and nothing more.

so i do agree that if you want "common sense gun talk" you usually have to leave liberals out of it.

guess that just paints us into a corner and is what can be frustrating to me.

We need to ban high capacity magazines for mass killing. See Orlando and Vegas.