Liberal gun bullshit

SmarterthanYou said:
no you wouldn't. you'd have your ass handed to you 8 ways from sunday. There are even supreme court cases where Ginsburg flat out states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and allows for citizens to carry guns in case of confrontation.
Click to expand...

You jumped immediately to violent language. I will "have my ass handed to me". We don't debate in this country with our asses. Politics and political debate are how we settle public policy in this country. If you don't like that, I suggest you move.

You're a nut. Anything you say is irrelevant. You are a complete freak who believes in arming themselves with hoarded arsenals in order resist the government. Even among NRA members (not its leadership, it's members) you are not in the mainstream. You serve one purpose in this society; an example.

We all need nutters like you to come out of the closet here and there, so we can point at you and show the American people. You do provide a immensely useful service, and I for one wish to thank you for it.
 
Darla said:
You jumped immediately to violent language. I will "have my ass handed to me". We don't debate in this country with our asses. Politics and political debate are how we settle public policy in this country. If you don't like that, I suggest you move.

You're a nut. Anything you say is irrelevant. You are a complete freak who believes in arming themselves with hoarded arsenals in order resist the government. Even among NRA members (not its leadership, it's members) you are not in the mainstream. You serve one purpose in this society; an example.

We all need nutters like you to come out of the closet here and there, so we can point at you and show the American people. You do provide a immensely useful service, and I for one wish to thank you for it.
Click to expand...
are you kidding????? you take a common phrase used in someone losing a debate badly and think it's an immediate jump to violence????
you've seriously lost it. way off the deep end.
 
Rune said:
Gore didn't lose? The CEO of Goldman Sachs didn't become treasurer of the United States and allow Goldman's biggest competitor to fail? 1,00,00,00 iraqi's didn't needlessly die? The fact is that Bush took office, do you really think I need you to remind me of this? But Gore won the popular vote, and Bush had to steal Florida, have a relative call the election on FOX news, and then have a radical Supreme Court decision, which was so radical the Justices made sure to put in writing that it could not be considered precident! (think about that one), install him. That's important information to keep in mind when you are telling people why Gore "lost" an election he factually did not lose.

You speak for all the rednecks of the country as to why they voted for Bush? All the sane people in the country were not able to prevent a stolen election? No one is claiming it was sancrosant to the founders, it is sancrosant to the people. The only one talking about rednecks here is you. I am not speaking for anyone, I am recounting the circumstances of the 2000 election. And exposing the fact that to make the claim that "guns" lost Gore the election is ludicrous and willfully ignores all other circumstances of that election, including Bush and the media's successful portrayal of Gore as a bore, a nerd, and a liar, and Bush as a 'cool kid". Those things mattered. And they had zero to do with guns.

Now would be the time, this would be the place No such ruling was ever needed before, the writing is plain enough. I actually agree with you here. I think the writing was plain enough!
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To pretend for one moment that the words "A well regulated militia" was not meaningful or bestowed individuals with the right to bear arms unfettered is, in my view, a radical reading of the text, and a wrongful one.

Tell us Darla, what regulations would have stopped this slaughter? There exist now myriad gun regulations. Do you deny this? No, there are gun regulations - they are ineffective. For instance, we need to ban the weapon used in Newtown, and all like it. It is a military grade weapon, meant for use on the battlefield, slightly adjusted for sale to consumers. It's a killing machine. It's an AR-15, a military weapon, and you know it. No one needs it for "self defense". Unless you are expecting an army to attack. And if you're expecting that, you're a paranoid delusional and we don't set policy based on the paranoid delusions of nutters.

No Darla, it is not just the 2nd, but rather the entire constitution which is sacred, but especially the Bill of Rights. Note that it is not called the Bill of Restrictions. Atempt an amendment, you have no other course. This is your most ludicrous claim of all. Up until only a few years ago, we had a ban on assault weapons and large capacity feeders. The 2008 supreme court decision actually also clearly states that there can be restrictions on the 2nd amendment. Therefore, a new assault weapons ban can pass Constitutional muster. And it can not pass. This all depends on what the court wants. And what the court wants, is dependent not just on their ideology, but on public opinion. And that is what we do in this country - we bring pressure to bear on courts and politicians as a way of affecting change. That is our history. That is what is happening now, if you look around.
Click to expand...

b
 
Bfgrn said:
Joe Scarborough: Newtown Shooting Made 'Ideologies Of My Past' On Guns Irrelevant

"I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington's old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don't have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want.

It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas. It's time for politicians to start focusing more on protecting our schoolyards than putting together their next fundraiser. It's time for Washington to stop trying to win endless wars overseas when we're losing the war at home ... For the sake of my four children and yours, I choose life and I choose change."
Click to expand...

Go along with me for a moment, assume ALL guns were banned. What is to stop the next lunatic from walking in with a bomb and doing worse?
 
Darla said:
You jumped immediately to violent language. I will "have my ass handed to me". We don't debate in this country with our asses. Politics and political debate are how we settle public policy in this country. If you don't like that, I suggest you move.

You're a nut. Anything you say is irrelevant. You are a complete freak who believes in arming themselves with hoarded arsenals in order resist the government. Even among NRA members (not its leadership, it's members) you are not in the mainstream. You serve one purpose in this society; an example.

We all need nutters like you to come out of the closet here and there, so we can point at you and show the American people. You do provide a immensely useful service, and I for one wish to thank you for it.
Click to expand...

Darla,,,,,,I think I love you.
 
Rune said:
Yes, he is a wonderful speaker. Forget what kind of speaker he is, think about the words. We either believe that "Freedom" is defined by the ability to keep and bear assault weapons meant to kill as many people in as fast a time as possible, and that some of them will be children, and are willing to sacrifice those children, or we aren't. We don't define freedom that way. We believe that the sanctity of a child's life, trumps the "right" to take that life. It is my opinion, and always has been, that a society or culture willing to kill their children, is an inherently corrupt people who do not deserve to be saved. There is nothing salvageable in that society.

Sorry Darla, but let's keep it factual. The weapon you describe is a fully automatic machine gun. We will have to ask STY when it was last legal to purchase such a gun, but IIRC it has been some number of decades. They were already illegal long before the Clinton/Gore assault rife ban.
Not going to argue weapons and tactics with you, neither of us are qualified to do so, though one of us is far less qualified than the other. This is something that people always bring up. As if it's some sort of "Gotcha!" What you don't get is; nobody gives a shit. Do you honestly believe that the parents of those dead kids give a flying fuck if the assault weapon used fired 100 rounds per minute, or 30? No, nobody other than gun nuts care about this nonsense. The fact is that the weapon in question, is a military grade weapon. I know you know that. You need to understand that I know it, that parents all across this country today know it, and they are choking your "right" to these weapons of mass destruction, back up. They are incapable of swallowing 20 slaughtered first graders as the price of doing business in this country. Semantics are going to get you nowhere, and fast.



We do. The very weapons you think are available are not. That is absurd BS. The weapons I think are available slaughtered a roomful of children, and semi-automatics are easily adjusted to get around state laws, and the gun manufacturers advise how to make these adjustments right on their websites. So who is kidding who with your semantics>?

Go for it. Tilt at windmills. Wag the dog. That will be helpful, meanwhile AIG will continue to syphon off a bit of every dollar that goes by, a husband will have his head bashed in by a hammer, a wife's face by a fist, a child's throat cut, another thrown off a bridge. Again, reinstating a ban we had only several years ago is the farthest from "tilting at windmills" as you can get. And allowing people to have unfettered access to these weapons will not stop anyone from punching someone. This is a ludicrous sentence you just wrote there, and frankly meaningless.
Click to expand...

.
 
Darla said;
No, there are gun regulations - they are ineffective. For instance, we need to ban the weapon used in Newtown, and all like it. It is a military grade weapon, meant for use on the battlefield, slightly adjusted for sale to consumers. It's a killing machine. It's an AR-15, a military weapon, and you know it. No one needs it for "self defense". Unless you are expecting an army to attack. And if you're expecting that, you're a paranoid delusional and we don't set policy based on the paranoid delusions of nutters.

No, he didn't use an AR-15. He had one in his trunk. Next.
 
Rune said:
Darla said;
No, there are gun regulations - they are ineffective. For instance, we need to ban the weapon used in Newtown, and all like it. It is a military grade weapon, meant for use on the battlefield, slightly adjusted for sale to consumers. It's a killing machine. It's an AR-15, a military weapon, and you know it. No one needs it for "self defense". Unless you are expecting an army to attack. And if you're expecting that, you're a paranoid delusional and we don't set policy based on the paranoid delusions of nutters.

No, he didn't use an AR-15. He had one in his trunk. Next.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Rune. He used the AR-15.
 
Darla, get your facts straight, then come back to this thread.
There were no asault weapons used.
There was no AR-15 used.

I also note you ignored most of what I said, except involving guns. This was a crime of mental illness.
You are so rabidly focused on guns, you can't talk of anything else at all.
 
Thing1 said:
If they intended individual rights, they would have left the militia language out. It's as clear as a qualifier can be.
Click to expand...
in 1792, what was considered the militia???????? why were they considered the militia???? and why were they required to KEEP THEIR OWN ARMS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
Rune said:
Darla, get your facts straight, then come back to this thread.
There were no asault weapons used.
There was no AR-15 used.

I also note you ignored most of what I said, except involving guns. This was a crime of mental illness.
You are so rabidly focused on guns, you can't talk of anything else at all.
Click to expand...

My facts were straight. Period.

As for mental illness, I'm not going to address that - it's a distraction that the gun lobby has ordered its puppets to use (and yes some on the left have gone along with this, stupidly), in order to deflect attention from the rising call for gun control.

We need to strike now on gun control, not sidebar into some nonsense about mental illness, when the entire left would gleefully support single payer including full access to mental health care, and the entire right gleefully knows they will never vote to fund even slightly more access, so the monsters actually use it as a distraction tactic, knowing full well it's irrelevant, because they will never allow it.

Play that game with other lefties, the stupid ones. Not with me.

Gun control.

Only thing I want to talk about until we get it.
 
cannabis said:
yet your post seemed to indicate you only want the weapons existing at the time the second was created, to be legal.

i have no problem with reasonable gun control regulations.
Click to expand...


This is a discussion about the 2ND amendment.

Your question about the 1st was just another diversionary ploy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top