Liberal gun bullshit

Bfgrn said:
I already did. Liberals need to grow a spine. Even Mayor Bloomberg, the most fervent gun control advocate has not called for taking people's guns away.

Like most liberals, I support the 2nd amendment. But none of our rights come without sanction. I believe every citizen has the right to defend their home and family, use guns for hunting and recreation. But the 2nd amendment does not give citizens the right to own and carry weapons that are manufactured to use in a war zone and have a rate of fire fire of one armor piercing round per second.
Click to expand...
the 2nd Amendment was written to keep the government in check by the people, should the newly formed central government ever forget who it was they were working for.

Bfgrn said:
When the 2nd amendment was written, the most firepower an individual could garner was a Flintlock Musket. Rate of fire of a musket in the hands of an expertly trained marksman is 3 rounds per MINUTE.

According to the Continental army training manual, there were 13 steps to firing a musket. In short, a soldier had to get a cartridge, tear it open with his teeth, put a little bit of powder in the firing mechanism, put the rest of the powder and a gun ball down the barrel, ram the ball and powder home, cock the musket and fire.

The musket was not an accurate weapon, so even after all that work, the soldier didn’t have the greatest chance of shooting his intended target. ref.
Click to expand...
so what?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the 2nd Amendment was written to keep the government in check by the people, should the newly formed central government ever forget who it was they were working for.

so what?
Click to expand...

It seems as if he thinks potential tyrants will limit their armies to muzzle loading muskets.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I call bullshit. you have already said that me having a gun concerns you greatly. i'm imagining that if I didn't have a gun, you wouldn't give a damn, so your fear is the gun.
Click to expand...

I never said you having a gun concerns me. What does concern me is you are the poster boy for the nuts in this country who believe the 2nd amendment means citizens should be able to have the same weaponry as the armed forces. It is TOTALLY driven by your overwhelming fear.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the 2nd Amendment was written to keep the government in check by the people, should the newly formed central government ever forget who it was they were working for.

so what?
Click to expand...

So, were back to your asinine belief that the second amendment should allow you to have intercontinental ballistic missiles, rocket launchers, tanks and aircraft carriers. You are a retard.
 
Liberty said:
Sounds like Al Frankin.
Click to expand...

You guys come down on him a lot, and I may not agree with all his positions, but the man is an outstanding representative of his state and has one extraordinary ethics! We could use more like him in Congress, right, left and middle.
 
Dixie said:
If the principle had been armed, no children would have died.

If the woman had committed her son to a mental institution, no children would have died.

If the perp had been taught about God...

If the perp hadn't been inundated with violent video games...

If the perp hadn't been bombarded by the culture of death...

If LIFE weren't meaningless to society...

IF IF IF!

IF ifs and buts were candy and nuts, a lot of kids would have a Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

That's the most sensible thing I've heard you say since the election! By God, you're getting better, Dix! Congrats!!!
 
Bfgrn said:
As a JFK liberal who has been around for over 6 decades, liberals and Democrats in this country have developed one fatal flaw...they had their spines removed. They have allowed conservatives to not only decide significant issues, but to set the agenda and define the language.

If Jack, Bobby and Ted were still alive, Obama would have been summoned to a weekend at the compound in Hyannis Port for an attitude adjustment and a spinal infusion.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too hard on Obama. He's done a lot with ObamaCare and the hate for him is still there. He has to move very carefully.
 
Dixie said:
Here's my assessment of Rune's suggestions:

I am proposing more than a $500 yearly limit on mental health treatment for insurance policies, like maybe no limit.
Increase the limit maybe?
I am proposing enough hospital beds available that when someone needs help there is somewhere to send them.
Don't know how you go about it, but not a bad idea.
I am proposing training for police so at least sometimes they might recognize a mental health issue instead of opening fire.
I think they do this already.
I am proposing Judges be better educated in mental health issues.
I think this is a good idea, and bring back 'involuntary institutionalization' like we had before 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' when liberals erased these.
I am proposing society accept someone with mental health problems the same way they accept someone with a broken leg, to de-stigmatize the condition.
No problem!
I am proposing single payer insurance so anyone who needs help can get it.
Nope. We simply can't afford this.
I am proposing that school "psychologists" actually be psychologists.
No problem.
I am proposing that society advances to the point where going to a therapist is a good idea, not something to be hidden and not talked about.
Good idea.
I am proposing that psychiatrists have some type of supervision so that when one dies, their patients are not left alone in the world with no one to turn to, and no idea what to do about it.
Fine with it.
I am proposing that practitioners of western medicine be trained to treat or least be aware of the entire patient, and not meet every symptom with a chemical treatment.
Okay.
I am proposing that social workers and child care providers be paid as if they are responsible for our most precious resources since they are.
Okay with this.
I am proposing that children be asigned some value in society, despite that fact that they can't vote and seldom have much disposable money.
Can we start with the unborn children?
I am proposing that more woman be authority figures, since that is the only correlation I can make to the slight drop in violence we have finally achieved.
No correlation. I disagree.
I am proposing that the ERA be passed, since it's failure was an act of violence itself. How could we as a country possibly judge women as less deserving than men?
Irrelevant.
I am proposing that the causes of despair and hopelessness be decreased by voting down the GOP in the next election.
Not a political thing.

Now, I think me finding agreement with 2/3 of what was suggested, is pretty good, considering.

I will add a few more...

Stop denouncing "God" every time you have the chance.
Start respecting life by denouncing late term abortion. (infanticide)
Teach the virtue of respect for others.
Speak up when you encounter the "weirdo" kid who isn't right.
Public schools, if we are going to have them, should have 'layered' security like a military base.
Get rid of the violent video games for children.
Get rid of the violent movies for children.
Get rid of the violent music for children.
Institutionalize the mentally unstable... Federally fund it if we have to with taxpayer money.
Have some form of 'armed security' at every school in America.

Let us understand, NONE of the measures mentioned here will guarantee anything. There is still the possibility for tragedy, and there is still the possibility that insane people will do insane things. We can never eliminate that possibility completely, no matter what we do.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good idea, and bring back 'involuntary institutionalization' like we had before 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' when liberals erased these.

The New World Order will accommodate you on that one. I think the term is "re-education camp". :)
 
apple0154 said:

I think this is a good idea, and bring back 'involuntary institutionalization' like we had before 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' when liberals erased these.

The New World Order will accommodate you on that one. I think the term is "re-education camp". :)
Click to expand...

More people die every year from AIDS infested penises than died on Friday. Ban that
 
Bfgrn said:
I never said you having a gun concerns me. What does concern me is you are the poster boy for the nuts in this country who believe the 2nd amendment means citizens should be able to have the same weaponry as the armed forces. It is TOTALLY driven by your overwhelming fear.
Click to expand...
it it totally driven by the truth. The founding fathers intended for the people to be stronger than any standing army.
 
Bfgrn said:
I already did. Liberals need to grow a spine. Even Mayor Bloomberg, the most fervent gun control advocate has not called for taking people's guns away.

Like most liberals, I support the 2nd amendment. But none of our rights come without sanction. I believe every citizen has the right to defend their home and family, use guns for hunting and recreation. But the 2nd amendment does not give citizens the right to own and carry weapons that are manufactured to use in a war zone and have a rate of fire fire of one armor piercing round per second.

When the 2nd amendment was written, the most firepower an individual could garner was a Flintlock Musket. Rate of fire of a musket in the hands of an expertly trained marksman is 3 rounds per MINUTE.

According to the Continental army training manual, there were 13 steps to firing a musket. In short, a soldier had to get a cartridge, tear it open with his teeth, put a little bit of powder in the firing mechanism, put the rest of the powder and a gun ball down the barrel, ram the ball and powder home, cock the musket and fire.

The musket was not an accurate weapon, so even after all that work, the soldier didn’t have the greatest chance of shooting his intended target. ref.
Click to expand...

should we extend the 1st amendment to television, radio, internet.....?
 
Rune said:
Didn't we (the whole fucking world, nevermind the country) lose enough over this issue?
Click to expand...

Yes, we did.

Rune said:
The second amendment is sancrosant.
Click to expand...

Nobody wants to do away with the second amendment, but neither should the right to keep arms infringe upon the rights of others. What is sacrosanct is the right of our children to live a full and prosperous life - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The fact is the NRA has strayed from it's original purpose of training and educating our youth on how to handle guns safely. It's now become the crack dealer to those who believe, wrongly, their right to keep and bear arms surpasses the rights of everybody else. The propaganda of the NRA has fueled the gun owner's habit and created a monster of payola to politicians in order to push the agenda of the gun owner. At the expense of sanity.

It's not going to be easy, but something needs to be done and will be done. Whether because of political correctness, or lawsuits, or lack of government funding, or societal stigma...the victims of mental illness are the loved ones who fear for themselves and the person with a disease. We HAVE to make it easier for ppl to get treatment - whether they think they want it or not. That does not, however, call for permanent institutionalism of our mentally ill. We can't lock them up and throw away the keys.

We need a concerted, uniform, federally funded dialogue on mental health focusing on identifying problems before they happen and taking appropriate action keeping the rights of the patient in mind.

We need to get rid of automatic and semi-automatic weapons of death designed for use by the military and law enforcement who's only purpose is to kill. There is no need for the hunter to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer or a homeowner to use a Glock to protect his family. The rights of the hunter and the family will be retained.

There are several local programs right now, nationwide, that involve turning in these weapons meant to kill in exchange for gift cards or other items. Why not expand them to include the ability to turn in the weapon and get a certificate for another, safer one (or whatever else the gun owner wants that's reasonable) worth the value of gun, say...$200...one not meant to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible? Make the program voluntary at first, gradually increasing it's scope to make it mandatory with criminal sanctions, including substantial fines, for those who refuse to comply after a given period of time.

All of this will cost money, lots of money our government just doesn't have. So how will we pay for it?

A surcharge, or tax, on ammunition and guns sufficient to handle the cost of mental health care and awareness, and to provide replacements for weapons turned in. Increase the aforesaid fines on criminals accused of using these weapons to insure compliance.

There's more I don't have time to detail, but it's got to be done. Let's quit the partisan sword-rattling and get this done. At least for the children!
 
Howey said:
Nobody wants to do away with the second amendment, but neither should the right to keep arms infringe upon the rights of others.
Click to expand...
and it doesn't, so there should be no issue.

Howey said:
We need to get rid of automatic and semi-automatic weapons of death designed for use by the military and law enforcement who's only purpose is to kill. There is no need for the hunter to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer or a homeowner to use a Glock to protect his family. The rights of the hunter and the family will be retained.

There are several local programs right now, nationwide, that involve turning in these weapons meant to kill in exchange for gift cards or other items. Why not expand them to include the ability to turn in the weapon and get a certificate for another, safer one (or whatever else the gun owner wants that's reasonable) worth the value of gun, say...$200...one not meant to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible? Make the program voluntary at first, gradually increasing it's scope to make it mandatory with criminal sanctions, including substantial fines, for those who refuse to comply after a given period of time.

All of this will cost money, lots of money our government just doesn't have. So how will we pay for it?

A surcharge, or tax, on ammunition and guns sufficient to handle the cost of mental health care and awareness, and to provide replacements for weapons turned in. Increase the aforesaid fines on criminals accused of using these weapons to insure compliance.

There's more I don't have time to detail, but it's got to be done. Let's quit the partisan sword-rattling and get this done. At least for the children!
Click to expand...
be prepared for millions of deaths and all out rebellion if you try to implement this tyrannical police state of subjugation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top