Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

Because I refuse to lend any credibility to anything that even remotely sheds a negative light on this president

edit

You dont have to worry about any accusations being answered, the Liberal media shares your passion and will be certain to bury anything they can.





Re-edit...

I actually take that back....... As im currently sitting here, i read that the media actually is pressing Obama about a lie he told........ no, not benghazi.... no... not fast n furious.....



about his ability to skeet shoot. Good job media...... but do we really even need to question Obama about lying about his shooting ability? He throws a baseball like a 9 year old girl, i think it's pretty safe to say he doesnt know how to shoot a shotgun. Though i have heard a rumor that he knows what to do with a long barrel, via Larry Sinclair and other members of his former church in which he has paid off people for their silence.

[Sinfix_15]

"Chicago is the blue print for gun laws in america" -Barry Santoro

Chicago Homicide Rate 2013 Already At 40 Before End Of January (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/chicago-homicide-rate-201_n_2569472.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)

[.blank cd]

edit
Pretty sure I had it right when I said conspiracy theories. Lol.

[Sinfix_15]

Pretty sure I had it right when I said conspiracy theories. Lol.

Here i am.... inside a thread where im being asked in detail to defend myself in theoretical situations and you refuse to answer a simple question. Im not asking you to validate the accusation. Simply asking what you will think IF it is true. If my wife cheats on me, i will divorce her. Answering that question does not validate that i think my wife has cheated on me.

You always avoid these questions and the reason you do so is because you do not want to be bound by your answer. The same way you avoided them when the questions revolved around economics.

You dont want anyone to be able to go back and say " you said you would do this ".... ultimately, you have to leave your escape route open. You will never trap yourself into NOT supporting Obama.

[David88vert]

Yes. It's called freedom. You can not produce an argument that justifies the banning of assault rifles. They are the VERY LEAST gun used in criminal activity and the MOST used gun in sport.

What history are you basing your opinion of columbus on????????? Columbus is a crime infested shit hole. People carry weapons when they go walking..... You might want to go recheck your history on that one..... here's a hint for you... extend your radius about 20 miles and see if anything interesting pops up on your radar.

Only that my family has been there since the land was settled, and I still have a farm there, and my cousin still lives there. I go down just past Columbus all the time to the farm. I've never needed an assault rifle to walk the streets anywhere.

[bu villain]

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite.

So your evidence for his plan to ban all guns is that he says he doesn't want to ban all guns. C'mon you have to do a little better than that if you want people to take your argument seriously.


King Obama with his executive orders (decrees). You didn't get the memo?

Do Lincoln's or any other presidents executive orders make them kings or just Obama's? Again, which of those 23 executive orders he signed in response to the Newtown shooting do you disagree with?


Not going to wait until a gun ban goes through to believe a gun ban can go through.

You can believe whatever you want but until Diane Feinstein becomes supreme dictator of America, you need more evidence to convince others that an all out gun ban is even remotely possible any time soon.

[David88vert]

So your evidence for his plan to ban all guns is that he says he doesn't want to ban all guns. C'mon you have to do a little better than that if you want people to take your argument seriously.

That's what I have been trying to get across to him.


Do Lincoln's or any other presidents executive orders make them kings or just Obama's? Again, which of those 23 executive orders he signed in response to the Newtown shooting do you disagree with?

I was being sarcastic. The 23 executive orders are fine, only one questionable is "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." If you remember 1993-1994, you would remember their very public stance on gun control and the outcome of that.


You can believe whatever you want but until Diane Feinstein becomes supreme dictator of America, you need more evidence to convince others that an all out gun ban is even remotely possible any time soon.

Agreed.

[.blank cd]

Here i am.... inside a thread where im being asked in detail to defend myself in theoretical situations and you refuse to answer a simple question. Im not asking you to validate the accusation. Simply asking what you will think IF it is true. If my wife cheats on me, i will divorce her. Answering that question does not validate that i think my wife has cheated on me.Heres my answer: It's actually theoretically possible for your wife to cheat on you.


You always avoid these questions and the reason you do so is because you do not want to be bound by your answer. The same way you avoided them when the questions revolved around economics.

You dont want anyone to be able to go back and say " you said you would do this ".... ultimately, you have to leave your escape route open. You will never trap yourself into NOT supporting Obama.I avoid questions like these cause they don't make any sense. I'm not the kind of person that would give any kind of credence to crackpot conspiracy theories, straw man arguments, and the general amalgam of logical fallacies disguised as conservative patriotism. It has nothing to do with an exit strategy and everything to do with me not taking a position in the left-right paradigm that exists on this forum.

[On_Her_Face]

More gun crimes happen in gun buffer zones and areas with more strict gun laws. That's a fact. I hate that so few even make this a problem for us law abiding citizens. Good thing I always stayed stocked up on ammo. Also recently bought an AR by S&W and 10 hi-cap mags for it. Do I need it, nope, haven't even shot it yet. Why do I own it? Because it is my right. There is no difference between my right to own a firearm (handgun or AR) legally and go to whichever church I want or not go to church.

[BanginJimmy]

I cant believe this dumb ass thread is still alive.

[.blank cd]

More gun crimes happen in gun buffer zones and areas with more strict gun laws. That's a fact.
Pretty sure that's false unless you can back it up with some data. IIRC, the majority mass shootings may have happened inside buffer zones, but there's WAY too much gun crime outside of buffer zones.

[On_Her_Face]

Pretty sure that's false unless you can back it up with some data. IIRC, the majority mass shootings may have happened inside buffer zones, but there's WAY too much gun crime outside of buffer zones.

I will have to look it up, however I did a report on it. Such as percentages of shootings in a strict gun area per capita (Chicago or DC's older laws) compared to non strict areas (Kennesaw).

Edit: It is also hard to PROVE to everybody that gun laws do work or do not work since all cities have different demographics and so many variables.

Here is the Kennesaw gun law with some facts if you are not familiar:

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm


According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4.

As for the buffer zones, I do not have an answer to solve this, nor does anybody else. You can try to eliminate guns but criminals will still get them just like people get drugs (not that I'm saying people that smoke pot are criminals in my mind, I am not a user myself either). On the flip side you can get rid of buffer zones and there are people who legally own guns that should not have them.

[David88vert]

Pretty sure that's false unless you can back it up with some data. IIRC, the majority mass shootings may have happened inside buffer zones, but there's WAY too much gun crime outside of buffer zones.

I believe that this statement is correct. There was a recent report that all of the mass murders in the US since 1950 have happened in gun free zones - except one. That one was when Rep. Giffords was shot in the head.
This is very different than crimes involving guns in general, which happen outside of gun free zones regulary.

[Sinfix_15]

Only that my family has been there since the land was settled, and I still have a farm there, and my cousin still lives there. I go down just past Columbus all the time to the farm. I've never needed an assault rifle to walk the streets anywhere.

Please tell me where farm land in columbus is. Columbus is a crime infest shit hole. I live here.... i know what i see when i walk outside.

[Sinfix_15]

Heres my answer: It's actually theoretically possible for your wife to cheat on you.

I avoid questions like these cause they don't make any sense. I'm not the kind of person that would give any kind of credence to crackpot conspiracy theories, straw man arguments, and the general amalgam of logical fallacies disguised as conservative patriotism. It has nothing to do with an exit strategy and everything to do with me not taking a position in the left-right paradigm that exists on this forum.


If its such a ridiculous accusation then you should be able to answer easily.

"What if Obama was a robot zombie from space and was here to eat our children" - i wouldnt vote for him.

See, easy.

[Sinfix_15]

You guys have shown me the error of my ways. Obama told me he wasnt going to take my guns..... just like Lance Armstrong told me he didnt take steroids. Their word is good enough for me.

[Sinfix_15]

I cant believe this dumb ass thread is still alive.

with all due respect.... this thread is the shit.

[bu villain]

That's what I have been trying to get across to him.

I was being sarcastic. The 23 executive orders are fine, only one questionable is "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." If you remember 1993-1994, you would remember their very public stance on gun control and the outcome of that.

Agreed.

Sorry David, shouldn't have quoted you, I was referring to Sinflix who was railing against Obama's decrees but still hasn't said which ones he opposes. I understand we are in agreement over most of this stuff.

[bu villain]

I will have to look it up, however I did a report on it. Such as percentages of shootings in a strict gun area per capita (Chicago or DC's older laws) compared to non strict areas (Kennesaw).

Edit: It is also hard to PROVE to everybody that gun laws do work or do not work since all cities have different demographics and so many variables.

Your edit is exactly right. There are so many factors why shooting rates would be different in Chicago than in Kennesaw and gun laws are probably far from the top of the list especially when you can simply drive out of Chicago city limits and buy a gun not much differently than in Kennesaw. Trying to turn correlation of shootings to gun laws of the immediate area to causation is misleading.

[bu villain]

You guys have shown me the error of my ways. Obama told me he wasnt going to take my guns..... just like Lance Armstrong told me he didnt take steroids. Their word is good enough for me.

No one is asking you to take his word for it, we are just asking you to provide evidence of your position. Lance Armstrong isn't guilty of taking steroids because he said he didn't, he is guilty because there is a large number of reputable people who were directly involved with him who give details of his actions. So again, where is your evidence? I'm more than willing to listen to it.

[On_Her_Face]

Your edit is exactly right. There are so many factors why shooting rates would be different in Chicago than in Kennesaw and gun laws are probably far from the top of the list especially when you can simply drive out of Chicago city limits and buy a gun not much differently than in Kennesaw. Trying to turn correlation of shootings to gun laws of the immediate area to causation is misleading.


The Chicago and Kennesaw comparison was just off the top of my head. The trends do follow at the city, state, and country level per capita. Just people who are anti gun will see it their way and find "loopholes" in my beliefs and visa versa. As somebody else stated that all mass murder shootings but one have happened in gun buffer zones (backing up my previous statement) so why would we expland our gun buffer zone(s)? It just does not make sense to me. Criminals will always get firearms, it might be harder but they will still do it. Then good people will be left hung out to dry.

[David88vert]

If you want to compare towns with similar laws, it's not Chicago and Kennesaw - it's Kennesaw and Morton Grove. Kennesaw's law was a political statement against the one that Morton Grove passed in 1981. I remember all of the rhetoric from back then - it was major news, and everyone was claiming that the government was try to ban all guns back then also.

Here's an article that looks back.
http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

[On_Her_Face]

If you want to compare towns with similar laws, it's not Chicago and Kennesaw - it's Kennesaw and Morton Grove. Kennesaw's law was a political statement against the one that Morton Grove passed in 1981. I remember all of the rhetoric from back then - it was major news, and everyone was claiming that the government was try to ban all guns back then also.

Here's an article that looks back.
25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’ (http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/)

Good find.. better comparison and seems now both are working decently. I would rather have the option to defend myself than not defend myself.

[Sinfix_15]

Sorry David, shouldn't have quoted you, I was referring to Sinflix who was railing against Obama's decrees but still hasn't said which ones he opposes. I understand we are in agreement over most of this stuff.

I comment more so based on what is to come. If you and the others honestly think i'm worried for no reason, well.... we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Obama is anti-gun. Him not standing up for the 2nd amendment while his democratic friends are seeking to burn it is good enough for me to count him guilty by association. As far as me commenting specifically on the exec orders that have happened so far...

I do not like the connection with healthcare and gun control. My dislike of that is amplified even further by the UN tie with gun control and healthcare. Obama doesnt come through the front door with his policies, he sneaks in the back. You cant take him at face value, you have to dig for the hidden gems and expect surprises. why are you guys acting like its some big secret that liberals are anti-gun?

[.blank cd]

Obama is anti-gun.
He passed legislation that allowed people to carry in parks. So how is he anti-gun again?

[Sinfix_15]

He passed legislation that allowed people to carry in parks. So how is he anti-gun again?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HDhDRUrRBF4

[Sinfix_15]

how much more fucking clear can this shit be........

[.blank cd]

how much more fucking clear can this shit be........

He PASSED legislation to allow guns into parks. Saying he supports an assault weapons ban and not really doing anything about it doesn't really mean much...

So how is he anti-gun again?

[Sinfix_15]

He PASSED legislation to allow guns into parks. Saying he supports an assault weapons ban and not really doing anything about it doesn't really mean much...

So how is he anti-gun again?

Supporting anything that comes out of Feinstein's mouth puts you on the anti-gun moron list. Obama is a puppet that reads whatever speech is put in front of him. He shows his true nature by the company he keeps. What he doesnt say speaks just as much as what he says. If you support an assault rifle ban then you are out of touch with reality. That single point of view alone shows that you are not adequately equip to understand gun issues and are either A: making knee jerk emotional decisions or B: pandering to the anti-gun liberals.

[David88vert]

Supporting anything that comes out of Feinstein's mouth puts you on the anti-gun moron list.

This part is true. Feinstein has always been against the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the interesting part today on Feinstein's bill:
Does Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Cover All Semiautomatic Rifles? - Hit & Run : Reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/does-feinsteins-assault-weapon-ban-cover)

[Sinfix_15]

This part is true. Feinstein has always been against the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the interesting part today on Feinstein's bill:
Does Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Cover All Semiautomatic Rifles? - Hit & Run : Reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/does-feinsteins-assault-weapon-ban-cover)

Would you expect anything less????

I said this from day one...... their specific regulations are not an accident. They are well thought out and cleverly worded with the purpose of banning as many guns as possible. Assault rifles are only being focused because theyre the "easiest sell" so to speak. If someone said lets ban handguns there would be an even larger outcry than there is now and their agenda would be dead in the water instantly. Theyre hiding behind an assault weapons ban and will sneak in as much regulation as they can...... until the time comes to seek more.

Their intention is obvious..... that's why ANYTHING they try to do must be opposed.

[Sinfix_15]

Ron Paul says members of both parties are trying to “gut our Second Amendment freedoms” (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/01/31/ron-paul-says-members-of-both-parties-are-trying-to-gut-our-second-amendment-freedoms/)


Id feel so much better about our country right now if Ron Paul was our president.

[bu villain]

I comment more so based on what is to come. If you and the others honestly think i'm worried for no reason, well.... we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Obama is anti-gun. Him not standing up for the 2nd amendment while his democratic friends are seeking to burn it is good enough for me to count him guilty by association. As far as me commenting specifically on the exec orders that have happened so far...

My problem is that you are painting with such a broad brush. People are not exclusively pro-gun or anti-gun. There are many shades of grey. I agree Obama is against automatic weapons and high capacity magazines but not against all guns. Action speaks louder than words (or theories) and as blank.cd pointed out, he has passed pro-gun bills. Furthermore, not all democrats are like Feinstein and I have seen Obama clearly support the second amendment on multiple occassions.


I do not like the connection with healthcare and gun control.

Even the NRA will tell you that it is important to ensure mentally disturbed people do not get access to guns so how can you divorce healthcare and gun control?


Obama doesnt come through the front door with his policies, he sneaks in the back. You cant take him at face value, you have to dig for the hidden gems and expect surprises.

I don't see how the gun control legislation under discussion in congress is sneaking through the back door. This is the appropriate political process. His executive orders such as "appoint an ATF director" and "allow more studies" do not strike me as anything inappropriate either.


why are you guys acting like its some big secret that liberals are anti-gun?

Are all democrats liberals? Does supporting any regulation of guns whatsoever make someone anti-gun? It's these overgeneralizations and us/them rhetoric that gets you push back.

[Sinfix_15]

My problem is that you are painting with such a broad brush. People are not exclusively pro-gun or anti-gun. There are many shades of grey. I agree Obama is against automatic weapons and high capacity magazines but not against all guns. Action speaks louder than words (or theories) and as blank.cd pointed out, he has passed pro-gun bills. Furthermore, not all democrats are like Feinstein and I have seen Obama clearly support the second amendment on multiple occassions.



Even the NRA will tell you that it is important to ensure mentally disturbed people do not get access to guns so how can you divorce healthcare and gun control?



I don't see how the gun control legislation under discussion in congress is sneaking through the back door. This is the appropriate political process. His executive orders such as "appoint an ATF director" and "allow more studies" do not strike me as anything inappropriate either.



Are all democrats liberals? Does supporting any regulation of guns whatsoever make someone anti-gun? It's these overgeneralizations and us/them rhetoric that gets you push back.

If you're stupid enough to be talked into supporting an assault weapons ban, i put you in the anti-gun group. I dont care if you support shotguns.. handguns.. or crossbows.... if you're willing to give in to an assault weapon ban, then you are part of the problem. Rifles kill less people a year than table saws.... it is the absolute LEAST used gun in criminal activity. So if you're willing to swallow that stat and still be ok with a ban, you are part of the problem. If you support AR and clip bans, you're anti-gun.

UN arms treaty was sneaking it in the back door. They put together these big massive bills and they bury little tidbits inside of it so that you wont notice. It's always something politely packaged like "free candy for children bill" so you'll agree with it, but then on page 867 it gets into the details they actually wanted to slip through. Just like the gun control debate.... the only reason ARs are targeted is because it's agreeable..... but theyre going to get as many guns as they can.

[.blank cd]

UN arms treaty was sneaking it in the back door. They put together these big massive bills and they bury little tidbits inside of it so that you wont notice. It's always something politely packaged like "free candy for children bill" so you'll agree with it, but then on page 867 it gets into the details they actually wanted to slip through. Just like the gun control debate.... the only reason ARs are targeted is because it's agreeable..... but theyre going to get as many guns as they can.
But how is it sneaking in the back door when it's widespread public knowledge what they're trying to do?

It's like a burglar posting a neighborhood newsletter saying "I'm going to break in the Smiths home at precisely 2:13AM February 9th 2013, gonna take their TVs and make a PB&J before I leave. Thank you"

[Sinfix_15]

But how is it sneaking in the back door when it's widespread public knowledge what they're trying to do?

It's like a burglar posting a neighborhood newsletter saying "I'm going to break in the Smiths home at precisely 2:13AM February 9th 2013, gonna take their TVs and make a PB&J before I leave. Thank you"

I just answered this question in the post that made you ask this question.

[Sinfix_15]

let me attempt to explain it again...............

jfasdgjashgjasdhgjklasdhgjkhasdgjkhsdjkghdasjklghj klasdhgjksdahgjklashgjkhsdajkgdhjklasghdjkashgjkad shgjadsbhgjbasdnbgfhawegtyaweghlasdblghkasbglasley gabghlabsdhlgbashlgbewygblaysdhbghasdbdghldasbghas bghbaweybgawlbguBHEGUbgjk;bdgjkbasdjkbgfjkasdbgjka dfbgdfjklghsdbgfshlberhlbgahklsdfbghsdbgfbsdgasjkl sbdljkabsjkbgasdbglabsebgjkasdbgjkasbsgjkdlbgasdjk bgjklasdbdgljkbajkldbglajsbdgjkbasdjklgbasjklbgjks dabgjklbasjkgbasdjklbgjkasdbgjkasdbjkdgbasdjkgbasj kldbgjkasbdgjksbajkgbsadjkgbjkasbgjkbasdgjklabgeru bguabjlgbajkdbgjklabgsdjkbajkleruibgaljdbgjkasb;gb w;eugba;jgjasdbgjkabwerjkgbasdjklbgkjdasbgjkabgulw ebgulabsjkgbjksbgajklebgwjaelbgluiahblgsdbguibalsj kdbgjklasbgjksdabgjklasbjgklbjaskdbgjksbadgjkbasgj kdlbgjkasdbgljkbsdajklgbsajkbdgjkasbgd;asbgdj;sabg kjsadbdg;jkbasg;gjba;sbdgasklbgdjklasbgjkasdbkgjlb asjkdbgjkBlankCDisaliberaltreehugginghippiedoucheb agapologistajskghasgsdfgsdgsdgsdgfsdfgsdgssjkghjas dkghdjaskhgldjkhasldgjkhasjkghlkahsdghahjgklajglkj alkgjaklgjlkadjglkasjgklsjslgkjklagkhajklsdghkasdj ghjkasdhgjkshgkjshgjkshkgjh
jfasdgjashgjasdhgjklasdhgjkhasdgjkhsdjkghdasjklghj klasdhgjksdahgjklashgjkhsdajkgdhjklasghdjkashgjkad shgjadsbhgjbasdnbgfhawegtyaweghlasdblghkasbglasley gabghlabsdhlgbashlgbewygblaysdhbghasdbdghldasbghas bghbaweybgawlbguBHEGUbgjk;bdgjkbasdjkbgfjkasdbgjka dfbgdfjklghsdbgfshlberhlbgahklsdfbghsdbgfbsdgasjkl sbdljkabsjkbgasdbglabsebgjkasdbgjkasbsgjkdlbgasdjk bgjklasdbdgljkbajkldbglajsbdgjkbasdjklgbasjklbgjks dabgjklbasjkgbasdjklbgjkasdbgjkasdbjkdgbasdjkgbasj kldbgjkasbdgjksbajkgbsadjkgbjkasbgjkbasdgjklabgeru bguabjlgbajkdbgjklabgsdjkbajkleruibgaljdbgjkasb;gb w;eugba;jgjasdbgjkabwerjkgbasdjklbgkjdasbgjkabgulw ebgulabsjkgbjksbgajklebgwjaelbgluiahblgsdbguibalsj kdbgjklasbgjksdabgjklasbjgklbjaskdbgjksbadgjkbasgj kdlbgjkasdbgljkbsdajklgbsajkbdgjkasbgd;asbgdj;sabg kjsadbdg;jkbasg;gjba;jfasdgjashgjasdhgjklasdhgjkha sdgjkhsdjkghdasjklghjklasdhgjksdahgjklashgjkhsdajk gdhjklasghdjkashgjkadshgjadsbhgjbasdnbgfhawegtyawe ghlasdblghkasbglasleygabghlabsdhlgbashlgbewygblays dhbghasdbdghldasbghasbghbaweybgawlbguBHEGUbgjk;bdg jkbasdjkbgfjkasdbgjkadfbgdfjklghsdbgfshlberhlbgahk lsdfbghsdbBANGUNSgfbsdsbdgasklbgdjklasbgjkasdbkgjl basjkdbgjksadbgjkasdbgjkbasklgbaskjbglajdbgasjkdbg kgasjklsbdljkabsjkbgasdbglabsebgjkasdbgjkasbsgjkdl bgasdjkbgjklasdbdgljkbajkldbglajsbdgjkbasdjklgbasj klbgjksdabgjklbasjkgbasdjklbgjkasdbgjkasdbjkdgbasd jkgbasjkldbgjkasbdgjksbajkgbsadjkgbjkasbgjkbasdgjk labgerubguabjlgbajkdbgjklabgsdjkbajkleruibgaljdbgj kasb;gbw;eugba;jgjasdbgjkabwerjkgbasdjklbgkjdasbgj kabgulwebgulabsjkgbjksbgajklebgwjaelbgluiahblgsdbg uibalsjkdbgjklasbgjksdabgjklasbjgklbjaskdbgjksbadg jkbasgjkdlbgjkasdbgljkbsdajklgbsajkbdgjkasbgd;asbg dj;sabgkjsadbdg;jkbasg;gjba;jfasdgjashgjasdhgjklas dhgjkhasdgjkhsdjkghdasjklghjklasdhgjksdahgjklashgj khsdajkgdhjklasghdjkashgjkadshgjadsbhgjbasdnbgfhaw egtyaweghlasdblghkasbglasleygabghlabsdhlgbashlgbew ygblaysdhbghasdbdghldasbghasbghbaweybgawlbguBHEGUb gjk;bdgjkbasdjkbgfjkasdbgjkadfbgdfjklghsdbgfshlber hlbgahklsdfbghsdbgfbsdgasjklsbdljkabsjkbgasdbglabs ebgjkasdbgjkasbsgjkdlbgasdjkbgjklasdbdgljkbajkldbg lajsbdgjkbasdjklgbasjklbgjksdabgjklbasjkgbasdjklbg jkasdbgjkasdbjkdgbasdjkgbasjkldbgjkasbdgjksbajkgbs adjkgbjkasbgjkbasdgjklabgerubguabjlgbajkdbgjklabgs djkbajkleruibgaljdbgjkasb;gbw;eugba;jgjasdbgjkabwe rjkgbasdjklbgkjdasbgjkabgulwebgulabsjkgbjksbgajkle bgwjaelbgluiahblgsdbguibalsjkdbgjklasbgjksdabgjkla sbjgklbjaskdbgjksbadgjkbasgjkdlbgjkasdbgljkbsdajkl gbsajkbdgjkasbgd;asbgdj;sabgkjsadbdg;jkbasg;gjba;s bdgasklbgdjklasbgjkasdbkgjlbasjkdbgjksadbgjkasdbgj kbasklgbaskjbglajdbgasjkdbgkasdjkhadjlskhdgjklashd gjkaslhdgjkahdgjklash
jfasdgjashgjasdhgjklasdhgjkhasdgjkhsdjkghdasjklghj klasdhgjksdahgjklashgjkhsdajkgdhjklasghdjkashgjkad shgjadsbhgjbasdnbgfhawegtyaweghlasdblghkasbglasley gabghlabsdhlgbashlgbewygblaysdhbghasdbdghldasbghas bghbaweybgawlbguBHEGUbgjk;bdgjkbasdjkbgfjkasdbgjka dfbgdfjklghsdbgfshlberhlbgahklsdfbghsdbgfbsdgasjkl sbdljkabsjkbgasdbglabsebgjkasdbgjkasbsgjkdlbgasdjk bgjklasdbdgljkbajkldbglajsbdgjkbasdjklgbasjklbgjks dabgjklbasjkgbasdjklbgjkasdbgjkasdbjkdgbasdjkgbasj kldbgjkasbdgjksbajkgbsadjkgbjkasbgjkbasdgjklabgeru bguabjlgbajkdbgjklabgsdjkbajkleruibgaljdbgjkasb;gb w;eugba;jgjasdbgjkabwerjkgbasdjklbgkjdasbgjkabgulw ebgulabsjkgbjksbgajklebgwjaelbgluiahblgsdbguibalsj kdbgjklasbgjksdabgjklasbjgklbjaskdbgjksbadgjkbasgj kdlbgjkasdbgljkbsdajklgbsajkbdgjkasbgBANGUNSd;asbg dj;sabgkjsadbdg;jkbasg;gjba;jfasdgjashgjasdhgjklas dhgjkhasdgjkhsdjkghdasjklghjklasdhgjksdahgjklashgj khsdajkgdhjklasghdjkashgjkadshgjadsbhgjbasdnbgfhaw egtyaweghlasdblghkasbglasleygabghlabsdhlgbashlgbew ygblaysdhbghasdbdghldasbghasbghbaweybgawlbguBHEGUb gjk;bdgjkbasdjkbgfjkasdbgjkadfbgdfjklghsdbgfshlber hlbgahklsdfbghsdbgfbsdsbdgasklbgdjklasbgjkasdbkgjl basjkdbgjksadbgjkasdbgjkbasklgbaskjbglajdbgasjkdbg kgasjklsbdljkabsjkbgasdbglabsebgjkasdbgjkasbsgjkdl bgasdjkbgjklasdbdgljkbajkldbglajsbdgjkbasdjklgbasj klbgjksdabgjklbasjkgbasdjklbgjkasdbgjkasdbjkdgbasd jkgbasjkldbgjkasbdgjksbajkgbsadjkgbjkasbgjkbasdgjk labgerubguabjlgbajkdbgjklabgsdjkbajkleruibgaljdbgj kasb;gbw;eugba;jgjasdbgjkabwerjkgbasdjklbgkjdasbgj kabgulwebgulabsjkgbjksbgajklebgwjaelbgluiahblgsdbg uibalsjkdbgjklasbgjksdabgjklasbjgklbjaskdbgjksbadg jkbasgjkdlbgjkasdbgljkbsdajklgbsajkbdgjkasbgd;asbg dj;sabgkjsadbdg;jkbasg;gjba;

[bu villain]

If you're stupid enough to be talked into supporting an assault weapons ban, i put you in the anti-gun group.

Wow, so now being stupid is equivalent to being anti-gun even if you otherwise support many kinds of guns. I don't think it's possible to have a rational debate with you. I completely agree with you that there is no point to banning assault weapons and yet we still can't avoid a debate because you only see the world in black and white terms. Your tone and perspective don't make you look like a principled debater cutting through the bullshit, it makes you look fanatical and simple minded.


UN arms treaty was sneaking it in the back door.

How has any UN treaty affected your ability to own guns? Specifically.

[Sinfix_15]

Wow, so now being stupid is equivalent to being anti-gun even if you otherwise support many kinds of guns. I don't think it's possible to have a rational debate with you. I completely agree with you that there is no point to banning assault weapons and yet we still can't avoid a debate because you only see the world in black and white terms. Your tone and perspective don't make you look like a principled debater cutting through the bullshit, it makes you look fanatical and simple minded.



How has any UN treaty affected your ability to own guns? Specifically.

When i say people are "stupid" for being ok with an AR ban, i say it in terms of them not realizing that it's a first step and that it serves no purpose. If you're just a guy who says "hey, i dont see why anyone needs an AR, i dont want one... yada yada" that's your opinion. My viewpoint is, an attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. I feel most people are guilty of thinking "they want to ban something i didnt care to own, i dont care then"....

And yes, that's stupid of them.



I dont want the UN having anything to do with my healthcare or liberties as an american citizen. Why do we need to globalize this issue when the rest of the world doesnt share our belief system? where do you think this path leads?

[bu villain]

When i say people are "stupid" for being ok with an AR ban, i say it in terms of them not realizing that it's a first step and that it serves no purpose. If you're just a guy who says "hey, i dont see why anyone needs an AR, i dont want one... yada yada" that's your opinion. My viewpoint is, an attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. I feel most people are guilty of thinking "they want to ban something i didnt care to own, i dont care then"....

And yes, that's stupid of them.

My issue was more with the description of anyone who is for ANY gun regulation being called anti-gun. I still wouldn't call those for such a ban stupid even though I definitely disagree that it will have an impact on gun violence.


I dont want the UN having anything to do with my healthcare or liberties as an american citizen. Why do we need to globalize this issue when the rest of the world doesnt share our belief system? where do you think this path leads?

I honestly don't think the UN is affecting your healthcare or liberties in a significant way.

[Sinfix_15]

My issue was more with the description of anyone who is for ANY gun regulation being called anti-gun. I still wouldn't call those for such a ban stupid even though I definitely disagree that it will have an impact on gun violence.



I honestly don't think the UN is affecting your healthcare or liberties in a significant way.

An attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. Assault rifles are not a problem in america, theyre used in crime significantly less than any other weapon. They are being targeted strictly on perception by politicians who are inevitably seeking full gun control.


Explain the purpose of the UN connection then.

[bu villain]

An attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. Assault rifles are not a problem in america, theyre used in crime significantly less than any other weapon. They are being targeted strictly on perception by politicians who are inevitably seeking full gun control.

I already stated I agree with you that assault rifles are not a major problem so I'm not sure what response you are looking for here.


Explain the purpose of the UN connection then.

First you will have to show me the UN treaty you are talking about and then explain to me how it is infringing your rights. My comment was based on the general fact that UN treaties do not supercede the laws passed by our congress.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3-GwqLgnIWI

[Sinfix_15]

Anyone care to explain this to me? Or care to explain the connection between healthcare and guncontrol or the UN connection to both. Why do we need the UN's input on american laws?

[.blank cd]

Why was the presenter of that video, LaPierre, for gun control just a few years ago? Now he's against it?

[Sinfix_15]

Why was the presenter of that video, LaPierre, for gun control just a few years ago? Now he's against it?

No. He said schools should be gun free zones with the exception of trained personnel and security. But your liberal pals read that like this....

Schools should be gun free zones with the exception of trained personnel and security

[Sinfix_15]

Seriously..... can one of you Obama supports please explain this to me. Explain the connection and need of the UN in our healthcare and gun control. Explain to me any benefit that i as an american citizen can receive from this. So if the UN thinks the united states should be gun free, then what?

[.blank cd]

No. He said schools should be gun free zones with the exception of trained personnel and security. But your liberal pals read that like this....

Schools should be gun free zones with the exception of trained personnel and security

Um, a few years ago he was for full on gun control. But "conservatives" don't remember that.

So why was the leader of the gun sales lobby for full on gun control before, and starkly opposing it today?

[Sinfix_15]

Um, a few years ago he was for full on gun control. But "conservatives" don't remember that.

So why was the leader of the gun sales lobby for full on gun control before, and starkly opposing it today?

Care to offer anything relevant to the accusation presented or the questions i have asked?

[.blank cd]

I did. Waiting for your answer so I can tailor my answer to yours.

So why?

[Sinfix_15]

I did. Waiting for your answer so I can tailor my answer to yours.

So why?

If your argument is based upon discrediting the NRA as a source, that's fine. Lets go ahead and say the NRA is a completely unreliable source. Now explain to me the reason for a UN gun treaty and what would happen if the UN decided the US should be gun free?

[Sinfix_15]

You cant. Just shoot me a PM when you realize that your president is a shitbag cock sucker. I know you'll never admit it openly.

[.blank cd]

If your argument is based upon discrediting the NRA as a source, that's fine. Lets go ahead and say the NRA is a completely unreliable source. Now explain to me the reason for a UN gun treaty and what would happen if the UN decided the US should be gun free?

What about the UN treaty do you not understand? How would the UN deciding the US should "gun free" affect the US exactly?

[.blank cd]

What part of the treaty, that you read, made you feel that it would affect your personal gun ownership rights?

[Sinfix_15]

What part of the treaty, that you read, made you feel that it would affect your personal gun ownership rights?

What purpose does it serve? It puts american gun laws on the table of discussion for the UN. Did you even watch the video?

[.blank cd]

What purpose does it serve? It puts american gun laws on the table of discussion for the UN. Did you even watch the video?

Yes, I watched the video made by the people that want to buy more guns and the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation. Great watch.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes, I watched the video made by the people that want to buy more guns and the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation. Great watch.

Pretty cool how the NRA used that puppet on the UN floor to give that speech about how handguns were weapons of mass destruction eh? I wonder if real UN negotiations sound anything like that? who knows.... we should make a global gun treaty with them and hope for the best.

Biggest spokesperson for gun sales is Obama.... his words have sold more guns than anyone in history.

[.blank cd]

Is it unfathomable for a gun manufacturing lobby organization and a conservative think tank to creatively string together a video telling you your rights are in danger and that in order to maintain them you need to buy a gun and join the NRA and donate?

Does that kind of thing not happen? Or am I wrong?

[Sinfix_15]

Is it unfathomable for a gun manufacturing lobby organization and a conservative think tank to creatively string together a video telling you your rights are in danger and that in order to maintain them you need to buy a gun and join the NRA and donate?

Does that kind of thing not happen? Or am I wrong?

So the NRA, unwarranted by any action of Obama, is simply seizing the opportunity of public paranoia to boost gun sales. Is that what you're saying? Good ole transparent Obama with no secrets only has the american gun owner's best interest in mind?

[.blank cd]

So the NRA, unwarranted by any action of Obama, is simply seizing the opportunity of public paranoia to boost gun sales. Is that what you're saying? Good ole transparent Obama with no secrets only has the american gun owner's best interest in mind?

Creating public paranoia.

[Sinfix_15]

Liberals.......

http://www.crystalinks.com/trojanhorse.jpg

[David88vert]

Neither of you two have actually read the UN ATT document, or even studied up on it at all - that is for sure.

It deals with international sales of conventitional weapons, not domestic sales.

Legally, a UN treaty cannot override the 2nd Amendment. Period.

[.blank cd]

Neither of you two have actually read the UN ATT document, or even studied up on it at all - that is for sure.
Here comes the peanut gallery

[David88vert]

Here comes the peanut gallery

If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't even be discussing it with Sinfix. You would have already pointed out to him that it has nothing to do with domestic sales. That's how I know you don't know anything about it.

Even Snopes has info on it. It's not hard to find out about. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

[Sinfix_15]

Neither of you two have actually read the UN ATT document, or even studied up on it at all - that is for sure.

It deals with international sales of conventitional weapons, not domestic sales.

Legally, a UN treaty cannot override the 2nd Amendment. Period.

How can i confidently believe that the UN cant override the 2nd amendment when our own president wants to? The excuse of "the constitution doesnt allow that" does not work with this president. He already attempts it.

The UN arms treaty is the "Global standard for regulating arms transfers". What is the purpose of this? the United States signing a UN gun treaty is like someone who owns a steak house signing a vegetarian treaty. The UN is predominantly in favor of a gun ban. It's not that this will directly effect gun owners the moment pen touches paper..... it's that seeds are being planted. It's pretty obvious the direction Obama wants to steer america.

[Sinfix_15]

So california is where it begins......

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/06/robert-farago/california-department-of-justice-gun-grabbers-grab-guns/

[David88vert]

How can i confidently believe that the UN cant override the 2nd amendment when our own president wants to? The excuse of "the constitution doesnt allow that" does not work with this president. He already attempts it.

The UN arms treaty is the "Global standard for regulating arms transfers". What is the purpose of this? the United States signing a UN gun treaty is like someone who owns a steak house signing a vegetarian treaty. The UN is predominantly in favor of a gun ban. It's not that this will directly effect gun owners the moment pen touches paper..... it's that seeds are being planted. It's pretty obvious the direction Obama wants to steer america.

Sorry, but you just don't get it. NO TREATY CAN OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE AMENDMENTS. Period. The UN has ZERO juristiction over the US. Learn what a treaty is, and what enforceable means.
The President does not have the power to ban guns, not by executive order, or by a treaty. It's a fact. You can believe it or not, but it does not change the legality of it.

Other countries don't care if you have an assault rifle. They don't want the #1 arms seller (The US government) to sell arms to their enemies. International sales are not the same as you buying at a gun store.

[Sinfix_15]

Under the proposed gun laws, if you're a parent and one of your kids gets in trouble or is diagnosed with the state's very loose determination of what mental illness is, the government can legally raid your home and confiscate your weapons. This is already happening in California. Where are they getting their information? By combing lists of registered gun owners. Theyre not going after the criminals, theyre using the "letter of the law" to go after compliant registered gun owners.


If you're a law abiding citizen with no criminal history what so ever and have a 4 year old with ADD, your house can be raided and your guns removed.





This is the reason for the healthcare link to gun control.

[Sinfix_15]

Sorry, but you just don't get it. NO TREATY CAN OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE AMENDMENTS. Period. The UN has ZERO juristiction over the US. Learn what a treaty is, and what enforceable means.
The President does not have the power to ban guns, not by executive order, or by a treaty. It's a fact. You can believe it or not, but it does not change the legality of it.

Other countries don't care if you have an assault rifle. They don't want the #1 arms seller (The US government) to sell arms to their enemies. International sales are not the same as you buying at a gun store.

It's a first step. This president has already violated the constitution. Why should i believe the constitution protects me? The only thing that protects you is what theyre actively seeking to remove as we speak.

[.blank cd]

If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't even be discussing it with Sinfix. You would have already pointed out to him that it has nothing to do with domestic sales. That's how I know you don't know anything about it.

Even Snopes has info on it. It's not hard to find out about. snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp)...Which is why I said, and I'm just quoting here...


What about the UN treaty do you not understand? How would the UN deciding the US should "gun free" affect the US exactly?


What part of the treaty, that you read, made you feel that it would affect your personal gun ownership rights?

[Sinfix_15]

...Which is why I said, and I'm just quoting here...

Liberals support anything daddy Obama does, no need to look into the details.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chris-rock-calls-obama-america-dad-article-1.1257009

[Sinfix_15]

"People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." Franklin D. Roosevelt


Obama keeps throwing potatoes and carrots in a pot but liberals keep insisting that he isnt making stew. No government is ever going to publicly say "here comes tyranny, prepare yourself for it". Every dynasty falls from within.

[David88vert]

It's a first step. This president has already violated the constitution. Why should i believe the constitution protects me? The only thing that protects you is what theyre actively seeking to remove as we speak.

Even in middle school, you should have learned about the checks and balances between the three divisions of our government. Our legal system is based on our Constitution. Do you really believe that your AR is protecting you from political overlords?

[David88vert]

Liberals support anything daddy Obama does, no need to look into the details.

Chris Rock calls Obama America (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chris-rock-calls-obama-america-dad-article-1.1257009)



Chris Rock does not worry me. He is not in a position of political power or influence.

[David88vert]

"People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." Franklin D. Roosevelt


Obama keeps throwing potatoes and carrots in a pot but liberals keep insisting that he isnt making stew. No government is ever going to publicly say "here comes tyranny, prepare yourself for it". Every dynasty falls from within.



Are you thinking that the US will collapse in the next 4 years, or are you suggesting that Obama will seize power and turn the US into a dictatorship?

[Sinfix_15]

Even in middle school, you should have learned about the checks and balances between the three divisions of our government. Our legal system is based on our Constitution. Do you really believe that your AR is protecting you from political overlords?

As long as the constitution is upheld, i have no complaint. This president has shown little regard for the constitution. THAT is the point.

[Sinfix_15]

Are you thinking that the US will collapse in the next 4 years, or are you suggesting that Obama will seize power and turn the US into a dictatorship?

I believe that Obama wants to change america and has a "whether you like it or not" approach to doing so. While i do not believe Obama himself seeks to reign as a tyrannical dictator, his ideology is damaging to the foundation of america that prevents tyrannical dictatorships from ever happening. Once you start chipping away at the foundation, none of the foundation is safe. Obama has little regard for the constitution and is already in violation of it on several accounts. The constitution was made to protect us from leaders like Obama. While he may not possess the ability to destroy it during his time in office, he is certainly doing everything in his power to "draw blood"

Like the saying.... "Liberalism - ideas so good you have to be forced to accept them"

[bu villain]

It's a first step. This president has already violated the constitution. Why should i believe the constitution protects me? The only thing that protects you is what theyre actively seeking to remove as we speak.


As long as the constitution is upheld, i have no complaint. This president has shown little regard for the constitution. THAT is the point.

What I don't understand is why you think the laws in the constitution are powerless but proposed (not even passed) gun laws and a UN treaty are a major threat. If you think the president and the UN are in more in control of our rights than the constitution or our congressional laws, then you are basically saying we live in a dictatorship. In which case, who cares if congress passes gun bans or not since all that matters is what the president thinks anyways and laws are irrelevant.

[.blank cd]

What I don't understand is why you think the laws in the constitution are powerless but proposed (not even passed) gun laws and a UN treaty are a major threat. If you think the president and the UN are in more in control of our rights than the constitution or our congressional laws, then you are basically saying we live in a dictatorship. In which case, who cares if congress passes gun bans or not since all that matters is what the president thinks anyways and laws are irrelevant.

I'm sure you heard of Poe's Law? They wrote that about Sinfix.

He's either incredibly delusional or a Poe that's trying entirely too hard.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm sure you heard of Poe's Law? They wrote that about Sinfix.

He's either incredibly delusional or a Poe that's trying entirely too hard.

Liberals think anyone who opposes their ideas are delusional. In theory, anyone with a hidden agenda would discredit any statement intended to reveal that agenda.

What about Obama's record or past has earned your trust?

[Sinfix_15]

What I don't understand is why you think the laws in the constitution are powerless but proposed (not even passed) gun laws and a UN treaty are a major threat. If you think the president and the UN are in more in control of our rights than the constitution or our congressional laws, then you are basically saying we live in a dictatorship. In which case, who cares if congress passes gun bans or not since all that matters is what the president thinks anyways and laws are irrelevant.

Every pool is filled with a first drop of water. While the constitution is not powerless, Obama seeks to diminish it's power. 2-3 more presidents like Obama and we may very well be living in a dictatorship.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, so what should we do if the president violates the constitution? what is the correct course of action?

[.blank cd]

Blank, so what should we do if the president violates the constitution? what is the correct course of action?

Pray to God. That's what I'd do.

[Sinfix_15]

Pray to God. That's what I'd do.

Go buy you a bible brother blank, we've got a soul to save.

[Sinfix_15]

Is Obama Pushing for a Civil War? - Capitol Hill Outsider (http://capitolhilloutsider.com/is-obama-pushing-for-a-civil-war/)

[Echonova]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK9AYDF2YCQ

[Echonova]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptp5xXfDcbM

[David88vert]

Sinfix, study up on basic US government structure. What you are suggesting is not even in the realm of possibility currently.
The only way that the US could currently end up in a dictatorship would be through a miliray coup, and we are not even close to that possibility now.

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix, study up on basic US government structure. What you are suggesting is not even in the realm of possibility currently.
The only way that the US could currently end up in a dictatorship would be through a miliray coup, and we are not even close to that possibility now.

Thinking it's impossible is one of the things that makes it possible. Americans hear in the news "it's legal to be assassinated by a drone on american soil without receiving a trial" and they think "i wonder what the kardashians are up to today".

No fallen superpower from history ever saw their demise coming, otherwise they would have prevented it. Christianity was the fall of Rome. Ideas can be more dangerous than bullets and bombs. Entitlement society is infecting the US and growing by the day.

[David88vert]

Thinking it's impossible is one of the things that makes it possible. Americans hear in the news "it's legal to be assassinated by a drone on american soil without receiving a trial" and they think "i wonder what the kardashians are up to today".

No fallen superpower from history ever saw their demise coming, otherwise they would have prevented it. Christianity was the fall of Rome. Ideas can be more dangerous than bullets and bombs. Entitlement society is infecting the US and growing by the day.



You are making your statements with no basis in facts though, which is as blank said - paranoia.

Anything is technically possible; however, probability show that the likelihood is so small it can reasonably be ignored at this time.

[Sinfix_15]

You are making your statements with no basis in facts though, which is as blank said - paranoia.

Anything is technically possible; however, probability show that the likelihood is so small it can reasonably be ignored at this time.

How would i validate a prediction? Using any example from world history, what factual evidence predicted the demise of any dynasty? excluding those who were conquered by military force.

Everything i'm "paranoid" about with Obama is currently happening. I predict it getting worse. How is it possible for that prediction to be proven? If it's so wrong..... why do so many people share the paranoia?

It is legal to be assassinated by your government without a trial. This can happen today. A drone could be entering my neighborhood right now to assassinate me as we speak. Technically....... by the letter of the law, this can happen.

while i do not really think this can or will realistically happen, i recognize that it overrides our trial system. Technically...... you can be "judged" without a trial, by your government, today... right now.... Feb 9th 2013.

That's just one of many examples of this government over stepping and power reaching.

[Sinfix_15]

» Obama violates Constitution again; elicits UN involvement in Arizona! Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/obama-violates-constitution-again-elicits-un-involvement-in-arizona/)

Abraham Lincoln, “This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within.”

[Sinfix_15]

A respected member of the military comes out and says that Obama is giving a litmus test to military leaders that revolves around their reactions to orders given to engage US citizens. » Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/)

Blank comes in and his argument is simply "i dont believe that"

so then you combine that with military drills being conducted in major cities.
Military Drills and Black Helicopters in U.S. Cities Spark Panic (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14391-military-drills-and-black-helicopters-in-us-cities-spark-panic)

At what point do we see smoke and stop waiting for fire?

You keep saying i dont have evidence, what evidence would anyone have?????????? Neither of us can go inside the white house and find out for ourselves..... anything we know about the internal workings of government will always be 2nd hand information.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3v7mvJ5Ns-8

When we did a poll on this site, 90% of you supported Ron Paul..... do you listen to any word that comes out of his mouth?

[Elbow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3v7mvJ5Ns-8

When we did a poll on this site, 90% of you supported Ron Paul..... do you listen to any word that comes out of his mouth?

Is this another US government concentration camp conspiracy video?

FEMA coffins?

:lmfao:

[Sinfix_15]

Is this another US government concentration camp conspiracy video?

FEMA coffins?

:lmfao:

Watch it before commenting, might help you out.

[Elbow]

Watch it before commenting, might help you out.

I'll pass.

[Sinfix_15]

I'll pass.

That's what they expect you to do. If people actually paid attention we wouldnt have these problems in the first place.

[Elbow]

That's what they expect you to do. If people actually paid attention we wouldnt have these problems in the first place.

Oh OK.

Remember the video right after 9/11 that the government was building concentration camps for us all and what not? They claimed the government would have full control a year later.

I'm sorry I won't believe into conspiracy theories made by someone on Youtube that has nothing better to do than TRY to find things to worry about.

[Sinfix_15]

Oh OK.

Remember the video right after 9/11 that the government was building concentration camps for us all and what not? They claimed the government would have full control a year later.

I'm sorry I won't believe into conspiracy theories made by someone on Youtube that has nothing better to do than TRY to find things to worry about.

If you actually watched the video you would see that its 90% politicians speaking..... you cant fake what comes out of a politicians mouth.

[Elbow]

If you actually watched the video you would see that its 90% politicians speaking..... you cant fake what comes out of a politicians mouth.

No but I know how easy it is to twist what someone says to meet your own agenda.

[Sinfix_15]

No but I know how easy it is to twist what someone says to meet your own agenda.

Then dont comment. Many other sections of this forum for you to participate.

[Sinfix_15]

pretty much says it all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wAYLr6u2FyY

[Sinfix_15]

Armed gang rapes 6 Spanish tourists in Mexico - Daily Witness (http://dailywitness.com/armed-gang-rapes-6-spanish-tourists-in-mexico/)

Good thing none of those 6 guys owned guns, they got tied up while all of the women in their group were raped. Obama needs to hurry up and ban guns so that criminals will stop using them to commit crimes. 6 guys might could have defended themselves if the criminals didnt have guns........









oh wait.... criminals dont give a monkey fuck about gun laws.

[.blank cd]

pretty much says it all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wAYLr6u2FyY

It does say it all. This country is littered with people who have a smug attitude on things they know nothing about and would rather waste their spotlight trying to make some sort of political statement rather than offer a solution.

This video keeps circulating my Facebook wall as "Sandy Hook parent OWNS congress!!!" He didnt OWN anyone but himself

"There's this thing called 'the constitution'..."

How about he read the first 11 amendments without the use of a book BEFORE he uses his condescending tone. He should have plead the 5th one before he took his seat.

[Sinfix_15]

It does say it all. This country is littered with people who have a smug attitude on things they know nothing about and would rather waste their spotlight trying to make some sort of political statement rather than offer a solution.

This video keeps circulating my Facebook wall as "Sandy Hook parent OWNS congress!!!" He didnt OWN anyone but himself

"There's this thing called 'the constitution'..."

How about he read the first 11 amendments without the use of a book BEFORE he uses his condescending tone. He should have plead the 5th one before he took his seat.

You're an intelligent, though mildly delusional guy.... i honestly do not see how this is so hard for you to understand. You liberals keep debating with gun owners like you're in a 9th grade mock debate trying to win 30 minutes longer of recess and a few boxes of pizza. What you fail to realize is that the reason your opposition is so passionate in their rebuttal is because theyre willing to die defending the rights you wish to take from them.

He said everything that most of america wants to say.

[David88vert]

This country is littered with people who have a smug attitude on things they know nothing about and would rather waste their spotlight trying to make some sort of political statement rather than offer a solution.

We call those people "politicians", and they come from both sides of the aisle.

[David88vert]

He said everything that most of america wants to say.

Actually, half of America. The other half does not mind more restrictions being placed upon their Constitutional rights as long as it does not affect their own daily actions.

[Sinfix_15]

Actually, half of America. The other half does not mind more restrictions being placed upon their Constitutional rights as long as it does not affect their own daily actions.

That half are morons. An attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom.

[.blank cd]

What you fail to realize is that the reason your opposition is so passionate in their rebuttal is because theyre willing to die defending the rights you wish to take from them.No. No they're not. No one in that video, nor in this thread is willing to die for their rights. We're all just a bunch of coddled Americans who are complacent with their Cadillac Escalades and their Spicy Chicken sandwiches and French fries, half of which get PMS'y because the NRA told them to get behind the cause of the moment and tried to fortify it with the 2nd amendment. Show me the tours of duty you've completed, then we might could talk about "dying for your rights". None of which are in danger at the present time.


He said everything that most of america wants to say.just because WAY LESS than half of America wants to say it doesn't mean it's right. Lol

[.blank cd]

That half are morons. An attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom.

Except NO ONES freedoms are under attack.

[Elbow]

No. No they're not. No one in that video, nor in this thread is willing to die for their rights. We're all just a bunch of coddled Americans who are complacent with their Cadillac Escalades and their Spicy Chicken sandwiches and French fries, half of which get PMS'y because the NRA told them to get behind the cause of the moment and tried to fortify it with the 2nd amendment. Show me the tours of duty you've completed, then we might could talk about "dying for your rights". None of which are in danger at the present time.

just because WAY LESS than half of America wants to say it doesn't mean it's right. Lol

Speak for yourself, I don't own a Cadillac nor do I eat chicken sandwiches and french fries.

[.blank cd]

Speak for yourself, I don't own a Cadillac nor do I eat chicken sandwiches and french fries.

There are two kinds of people in this world Simon: Those that have eaten at chick-Fil-a, and those that lie about eating at chick-Fil-a.

[Elbow]

There are two kinds of people in this world Simon: Those that have eaten at chick-Fil-a, and those that lie about eating at chick-Fil-a.

I get the salad there and I HATE waffle fries.

So you're right, I have HAD a chicken sandwich from there, but I got a side salad instead of those nasty things.

[Echonova]

Waffle fries are hard to dip into the ketchup they give you... Fuck waffle fries.

[Sinfix_15]

Except NO ONES freedoms are under attack.


You're too smart to be this stupid.

[.blank cd]

You're too smart to be this stupid.

Whos freedom and what freedom is under attack?

[Sinfix_15]

Whos freedom and what freedom is under attack?


For starters.... anybody who owns one of these.
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ar-15-guy-4.jpg

[.blank cd]

For starters.... anybody who owns one of these.
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ar-15-guy-4.jpg

So then exactly what freedom is under attack?

[Sinfix_15]

So then exactly what freedom is under attack?

lol.....................

[.blank cd]

lol.....................

So then do you admit that no ones freedoms are under attack?

[Sinfix_15]

So then do you admit that no ones freedoms are under attack?

riiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttt.... ....

[Elbow]

riiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttt.... ....

Did .blank hack your account?

[David88vert]

Here's the questions that you should be asking about a ban on assault style weapons.

First, will it be a ban on future sales from manufacturers, or existing and already privately owned property?
If it is a ban on only future sales, then the manufacturers ability to make profits on these sales will be reduced by regulation of commerce.
If it bans currently privately owned firearms, then you are either making law abiding citizens into criminals, or you are seizing private property without due cause. If you do a mandated gun buyback, who foots the bill? And will the people who bought them receive what they paid, or much less? Are they just to take a loss because Obama says so?

[Echonova]

Signed the NDAA into law - making it legal to assassinate Americans w/o charge or trial. That will cramp your freedom.

That same NDAA law also gives him the power to detain you indefinitely without charging you with a crime.

How about forcing Religious groups to supply/pay for birth control. Separation of church and state right? Isn't that what you guys claim when anyone mentions 8lb 6oz baby Jesus in a public domain? Works both ways.

Forcing Americans to buy health insurance.

Violating Equal Protection and Voting Rights. The 14th Amendment guarantees “due process” and “equal protection of the laws.” The 15th Amendment guarantees that “the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race.…”. Anyone else remember the Black Panthers in 2008? Now that wasn't Obama doing it, but they sure dropped the charges on the ones that did.

[.blank cd]

Here's the questions that you should be asking about a ban on assault style weapons.

First, will it be a ban on future sales from manufacturers, or existing and already privately owned property?
If it is a ban on only future sales, then the manufacturers ability to make profits on these sales will be reduced by regulation of commerce.
If it bans currently privately owned firearms, then you are either making law abiding citizens into criminals, or you are seizing private property without due cause. If you do a mandated gun buyback, who foots the bill? And will the people who bought them receive what they paid, or much less? Are they just to take a loss because Obama says so?

All I want to know is if worst case scenario there was an all out ban and collection of Assault Rifles, how does that infringe on your "right to bear arms"?

Can someone cite some language in the constitution that says I can own an assault rifle?

[On_Her_Face]

All I want to know is if worst case scenario there was an all out ban and collection of Assault Rifles, how does that infringe on your "right to bear arms"?

Can someone cite some language in the constitution that says I can own an assault rifle?

Just out of curiosity what is an assault rifle to you? It seems you are opposed to them, which is fine that is your opinion. Without looking it up (not sure your familiarity with firearms), without being sarcastic, or just posting a picture. After you write what an assault rifle is then why is it more dangerous than any other firearm?

[.blank cd]

Just out of curiosity what is an assault rifle to you? It seems you are opposed to them, which is fine that is your opinion. Without looking it up (not sure your familiarity with firearms), without being sarcastic, or just posting a picture. After you write what an assault rifle is then why is it more dangerous than any other firearm?

I'm not opposed to assault rifles at all. And I don't think they are really any more dangerous than regular rifles.

[On_Her_Face]

I'm not opposed to assault rifles at all. And I don't think they are really any more dangerous than regular rifles.

For some reason I thought you were for the ban. Yeah they essentially are not more dangerous than a bolt action (sure you can fire faster than an assault rifle), but then you can have a shotgun and clear out a hallway of any building you want. Just curious... carry on.

[David88vert]

All I want to know is if worst case scenario there was an all out ban and collection of Assault Rifles, how does that infringe on your "right to bear arms"?

Can someone cite some language in the constitution that says I can own an assault rifle?


1791 - Second Amendment - As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: "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."

Definition - infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine; encroach on

2008 - The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

As Congress did not state limits on types of firearms; technically, a restriction on assault style weapons is an infringement, and thus not in line with the US Constitution (i.e - unconstitutional).

A more important item to consider is how the collection of assault style rifles would be implemented. Would you encourage the US government to ignore the Fourth Amendment while they ignore the Second Amendment, and enter homes without warrants or probable cause where weapons might be stashed? Where is the line where you just throw out the entire Bill of Rights and revoke the First Amendment also? It's a slippery slope.

[David88vert]

... ... ......... to assault rifles at all. ......

Edit that quickly - you might confuse Sinfix.

BTW - Fully automatic assault rifles are not exactly the same thing as semi-automatic assault style rifles.
I am not 100% against the regulation of some assault style rifles, as we already have that with fully auto weapons.
Registration of all firearms should not be passed into law though, as that is counterproductive to the spirit of the law when the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment.

[Sinfix_15]

All I want to know is if worst case scenario there was an all out ban and collection of Assault Rifles, how does that infringe on your "right to bear arms"?

Can someone cite some language in the constitution that says I can own an assault rifle?

So the government making objects that i currently own peacefully, illegal and taking them from me would not infringe on my freedom..... ok, im starting to follow you and understand how we're not agreeing with each other on this issue.

[.blank cd]

1791 - Second Amendment - As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: "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."

Definition - infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine; encroach on

2008 - The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

As Congress did not state limits on types of firearms; technically, a restriction on assault style weapons is an infringement, and thus not in line with the US Constitution (i.e - unconstitutional).So the restrictions already imposed on military style weapons and suppressors is unconstitutional?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not opposed to assault rifles at all. And I don't think they are really any more dangerous than regular rifles.

Then you should be on my side of the fence opposing this over reach of government.

[Sinfix_15]

So the restrictions already imposed on military style weapons and suppressors is unconstitutional?

Yes.

they got the inch.... and want the mile.

Peopled accepted the inch as a compromise. Line is drawn in the sand now.

[David88vert]

So the restrictions already imposed on military style weapons and suppressors is unconstitutional?

I did not say that. Once again, you do not pay attention and respond to the discussion, instead, you move to tangents.

Perhaps you should study up on the legal status before involving yourself in discussions that you apparently do not fully understand.
Start with the comments from Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html)

Scalia, June 26, 2008: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Semi-autos are hardly considered unusual.

[David88vert]

double post

[Sinfix_15]

AK47 with a slidefire stock, would you classify that as unusual?

[David88vert]

Yes.

they got the inch.... and want the mile.

Peopled accepted the inch as a compromise. Line is drawn in the sand now.

Fully automatic rifles are only useful in military situations. There is no reasonable use for them in civilian life.
You ca get them legally though, and I know a couple of people that do have them - and legally. There is a lot of documentation and registration to getting them though.

Would you have military grade explosives, such as C-4, available to all as well? Should an individual be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons, if they have the capability to? There has to be a line in the sand somewhere.

[David88vert]

AK47 with a slidefire stock, would you classify that as unusual?

If it was fully automatic, then absolutely.

If it is a mass produced semi-automatic with no chance of being converted to fully auto, it's not unusual; however, requiring registration for such a weapon is not a violation of the Second Amendment, as you would still be allowed to own it - just like handgun registration.

[.blank cd]

I did not say that. Once again, you do not pay attention and respond to the discussion, instead, you move to tangents.

Perhaps you should study up on the legal status before involving yourself in discussions that you apparently do not fully understand..Whatever you've got, I've read it, studied it. I know more than you.

[Sinfix_15]

Fully automatic rifles are only useful in military situations. There is no reasonable use for them in civilian life. Would you have military grade explosives, such as C-4, available to all as well? Should an individual be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons, if they have the capability to? There has to be a line in the sand somewhere.


I agree with where the current "line in the sand" is. But for the sake of argument.... tyranny would be a military situation and in that situation you would be defending yourself from fully automatic weapons.

Some of the current legislation i agree with or understand more than others.... some i dont. If given the option to do so, i would remove the ban on select fire rifles.Also, I understand the danger of silencers being on the open market, but it would be nice to be able to target shoot at my leisure without annoying the neighbors. A silencer isnt rocket science....... it's easily duplicated and if someone intended to use silencing for criminal purpose, they could pick one up at autozone.

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii146/surfram/stpoilfilter.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Whatever you've got, I've read it, studied it. I know more than you.

Certainly doesnt appear that way. Like most liberals, you seem to sweep the facts that dont support the agenda under the rug and forget about them.

[David88vert]

Whatever you've got, I've read it, studied it. I know more than you.

I can't tell. You seem to be a 22 year old who doesn't have any facts to ever back up their statements, and always attempts to change topics when you have nothing to work with.

I was an adult before the 1994 ban was enacted, you don't have the knowledge of the 1990's high homicide rates.

[David88vert]

I agree with where the current "line in the sand" is. But for the sake of argument.... tyranny would be a military situation and in that situation you would be defending yourself from fully automatic weapons.


Exactly how would you use a fully automatic rifle against an Army brigade with tanks and body armor? How about fighter jets and attack helicopters?
You would accomplish nothing with a machine gun - nothing.

[.blank cd]

I can't tell. You seem to be a 22 year old who doesn't have any facts to ever back up their statements, and always attempts to change topics when you have nothing to work with.

I was an adult before the 1994 ban was enacted, you don't have the knowledge of the 1990's high homicide rates.Coming from a person who is utterly wrong 99% of the time, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Sinfix_15]

Exactly how would you use a fully automatic rifle against an Army brigade with tanks and body armor? How about fighter jets and attack helicopters?
You would accomplish nothing with a machine gun - nothing.

Then why are they so worried about them? By that explanation, isnt an M16 equally as ineffective as an AR15? I think the government has a greater respect for firearms than they are willing to admit. Our country was founded on the ingenuity of gun manufacturers more than it was the military prowess of our leaders.

[David88vert]

Coming from a person who is utterly wrong 99% of the time, I'll take that as a compliment.

You are delusional. You think your opinions are more relevant than actual facts. And as for "99%", that is another one of your made-up numbers. You just love to make-up statistics with no factual basis.

When you get older and have some actual knowledge and experience, come back with factual basis for your opinions.

[David88vert]

Then why are they so worried about them? By that explanation, isnt an M16 equally as ineffective as an AR15? I think the government has a greater respect for firearms than they are willing to admit. Our country was founded on the ingenuity of gun manufacturers more than it was the military prowess of our leaders.

What makes you think that they are worried about them? As long as they can get people to vote for them, they already have the power. They actually don't need to take any weapons away, if the people continue to hand over power.

[.blank cd]

You are delusional. You think your opinions are more relevant than actual facts. And as for "99%", that is another one of your made-up numbers. You just love to make-up statistics with no factual basis.

When you get older and have some actual knowledge and experience, come back with factual basis for your opinions.

I'm fairly certain I could go back 100 of your posts and 99 of them be completely useless.

[Sinfix_15]

What makes you think that they are worried about them? As long as they can get people to vote for them, they already have the power. They actually don't need to take any weapons away, if the people continue to hand over power.

They clearly want them removed. Theyre taking steps to remove them based on false information. If they were not concerned with them, we wouldnt be talking about it.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm fairly certain I could go back 100 of your posts and 99 of them be completely useless.

I assume your evident frustration is because you're intelligent enough to realize that what David said about you is true.... but you're still brainwashed enough to stick to your liberal guns. (pun intended)

[.blank cd]

I assume your evident frustration is because you're intelligent enough to realize that what David said about you is true.... but you're still brainwashed enough to stick to your liberal guns. (pun intended)

Which part was true? My age? Or my level of intelligence? Both of which he hit the nail on his own thumb.

[Sinfix_15]

Which part was true? My age? Or my level of intelligence? Both of which he hit the nail on his own thumb.

That you seem to value your own opinions over evidence and fade in debates that become oriented around evidence. It's a pretty typical occurrence from people on the left side of the spectrum.

L: This needs to happen because of this.
R: But the facts show that it actually happens because of this.
L: you're stupid, how can you not see it the way i see it?

[.blank cd]

That you seem to value your own opinions over evidence and fade in debates that become oriented around evidence. It's a pretty typical occurrence from people on the left side of the spectrum.So can you point out an instance where I issued my opinion as fact?

[bu villain]

L: This needs to happen because of this.
R: But the facts show that it actually happens because of this.
L: you're stupid, how can you not see it the way i see it?

This goes both ways pretty regularly. Despite the prevalence of ignorance in political debates, it's actually pretty rare for there to be an issue where one side has absolutely no valid points to make.

[David88vert]

I'm fairly certain I could go back 100 of your posts and 99 of them be completely useless.

Factual statements are only useless to those who choose to ignore facts that do not fit with their beliefs.

[David88vert]

Which part was true? My age? Or my level of intelligence? Both of which he hit the nail on his own thumb.

Please re-read your post. "hit the nail on his own thumb"? Do you even know what a hammer and nail are?

I have given you plenty of facts, and you have chosen to ignore the factual statements repeatedly, which speaks volumes concerning your intelligence level.

[David88vert]

This goes both ways pretty regularly. Despite the prevalence of ignorance in political debates, it's actually pretty rare for there to be an issue where one side has absolutely no valid points to make.



This is a very valid observation. What we see is that someone who should be capable of presenting plenty of facts to support his opinions, instead chooses to ignore them and sticks to beliefs only.

[.blank cd]

This is a very valid observation. What we see is that someone who should be capable of presenting plenty of facts to support his opinions, instead chooses to ignore them and sticks to beliefs only.
I know this was directed at me, and yet none of you could find a single instance of where I issued an opinion in place of a fact. Hehehe.

[David88vert]

I know this was directed at me, and yet none of you could find a single instance of where I issued an opinion in place of a fact. Hehehe.

I didn't look for one. I am fairly certain that I could find one if I wanted to look.
Didn't you proclaim that psychology was a science and was under the same scrutiny as chemistry? Perhaps you should re-read this thread.

And yes - the statement was concerning you (not directed at you, but rather to bu villan, who I quoted). Wasn't trying to hide it obviously. I really wish that you would present facts to support your opinions - I am 99% certain that you could do so, if you would put out the effort. (I made up the 99% statistic).

Are you saying that you only have opinions and take things completely on faith? That gives the appearance that a person that is studying science is refusing to actually apply it, and would rather just treat their opinions like they were religious beliefs.

[.blank cd]

I didn't look for one. I am fairly certain that I could find one if I wanted to look.
Didn't you proclaim that psychology was a science and was under the same scrutiny as chemistry? Perhaps you should re-read this thread.Is that the same thread where you challenged me and cited the OPINION of someone who did not have a doctor in psychology?


And yes - the statement was concerning you (not directed at you, but rather to bu villan, who I quoted). Wasn't trying to hide it obviously. I really wish that you would present facts to support your opinions - I am 99% certain that you could do so, if you would put out the effort. (I made up the 99% statistic).

Are you saying that you only have opinions and take things completely on faith? That gives the appearance that a person that is studying science is refusing to actually apply it, and would rather just treat their opinions like they were religious beliefs.I very seldom share my opinions and make sure anything I say at the very least can be found in a college level textbook with minimal effort.

[David88vert]

Is that the same thread where you challenged me and cited the OPINION of someone who did not have a doctor in psychology?

I very seldom share my opinions and make sure anything I say at the very least can be found in a college level textbook with minimal effort.

Same thread where I gave you the professional opinon of a nationally recognized psycologist, and the opinion of someone nationally recognized as a leader in autistic research - plus the professional and published opinion of the former head of the psychiatric department of City University in London - all which were not in agreement with your stated opinions. You should re-read the thread, as you provided no such support for your own personal, uneducated opinions.

So you claim that you don't share your opinions, yet we see that you have not provided factual statements either, and then you just stated that you didn't state your opinion as fact, so what exactly do you think that you are supplying when you type?

[Sinfix_15]

So can you point out an instance where I issued my opinion as fact?

sure


Except NO ONES freedoms are under attack.

[Echonova]

Pretty much sums up the position on both sides.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6ShWlA3KlE

[.blank cd]

Ted Nugent, you are full of CRAP on ANY debate

[Sinfix_15]

Ted Nugent, you are full of CRAP on ANY debate

Add this to the list of opinions.

[David88vert]

Ted Nugent, you are full of CRAP on ANY debate


Piers Morgan is a British anti-gun nut, and always has been. Even Jeremy Clarkson couldn't stand him, and punched him.

Let's get into a fact check though. Ted Nugent stated that the US and Switzerland were the top countries, and Piers Morgan said that it was the US and Yemen. Here's the facts:

The numbers that they were talking about come from smallarmssurvey.org 2007 report, "Annexe 4", which covers 178 countries.
The ownership rate reported is the average estimate. That table gives also the minimum and maximum estimates. For some countries, the margin of error is considerable. E.g. Yemen, ranked near the top with an ownership rate of 54.8, has a low estimate of 28.6 and a high estimate of 81.1. While the United States is ranked for the highest gun ownership rate unambiguously, Yemen based on the margin of error may rank anywhere between 2nd and 18th, Switzerland anywhere between 2nd and 16th.
The differences here are that Yemen is poor, and 46% of the population is under 15. Switzerland is one of the richest countries, and the structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their Army issued equipment, including all personal weapons, at home.
To conclude that guns make the country safer, or more dangerous, just from the per capita numbers is ill-informed. Anyone looking to use per capita to try to regulate guns is simply trying to promote an agenda. In this particular case, having a known liberal foreign national attempt to influence US policies is pathetic.

[.blank cd]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/016f9fcea46651ffa2573d78a44716f2/tumblr_mh2czxx0Nx1qazvf5o1_500.jpg

[.blank cd]

In this particular case, having a known liberal foreign national attempt to influence US policies is pathetic.
He's not attempting to influence US policy, he's the host of an opinion based news segment, no more relevant or influential than Bill O'Reiley. Ted Nugent is a washed up country music singer (I use that term loosely) who's only claim to recent fame is being a mouthy idiot who knows nothing about anything, and dodges drafts.

[Sinfix_15]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/016f9fcea46651ffa2573d78a44716f2/tumblr_mh2czxx0Nx1qazvf5o1_500.jpg

Clearly he is speaking to intentions.

If Obama accomplishes what he DESIRES to do..... people like Ted Nugent and myself.... and many others on this sight who live otherwise peaceful lives will become criminals by the letter of the law. Nugent, like others..... says he will not abide by these new laws and the result will either be death defending your rights or jail.

What part of this do you not understand?


I say again....................... you're too smart to be this stupid.

[Sinfix_15]

He's not attempting to influence US policy, he's the host of an opinion based news segment, no more relevant or influential than Bill O'Reiley. Ted Nugent is a washed up country music singer (I use that term loosely) who's only claim to recent fame is being a mouthy idiot who knows nothing about anything, and dodges drafts.

add this to the list of baseless opinions also.

[.blank cd]

add this to the list of baseless opinions also.

Piers hosts an opinion based show, Ted is a washed up country singer, and he dodged the draft. What about that is an opinion?

[David88vert]

He's not attempting to influence US policy, he's the host of an opinion based news segment, no more relevant or influential than Bill O'Reiley. Ted Nugent is a washed up country music singer (I use that term loosely) who's only claim to recent fame is being a mouthy idiot who knows nothing about anything, and dodges drafts.

CNN gave Piers Morgan a timeslot that held the largest viewership of US voters - Larry King's show. Do you think that was by accident?

If you have watched his show even once, then you would not say that he is not attempting to influence US policy. Please watch and see for yourself.
If you want, just go to YouTube and type in his name and listen to him yourself.

[.blank cd]

Clearly he is speaking to intentions.

If Obama accomplishes what he DESIRES to do..... people like Ted Nugent and myself.... and many others on this sight who live otherwise peaceful lives will become criminals by the letter of the law. Nugent, like others..... says he will not abide by these new laws and the result will either be death defending your rights or jail.

What part of this do you not understand?


I say again....................... you're too smart to be this stupid.

Nugent said of Obama getting re-elected that he would either be dead or in jail, what part of that has anything to do with Obama accomplishing something and Nugent defending his rights?

[.blank cd]

CNN gave Piers Morgan a timeslot that held the largest viewership of US voters - Larry King's show. Do you think that was by accident?

If you have watched his show even once, then you would not say that he is not attempting to influence US policy. Please watch and see for yourself.
If you want, just go to YouTube and type in his name and listen to him yourself.

I've seen his show. He is the media equivalent to someone like Bill O'Reiley. He may have a lot to do with influencing the public opinion, the same way Bill O'Reiley would, and im pretty sure he has the top slot on Fox Entertainment, but that's it. I don't set out to watch either of those shows.

[David88vert]

Piers hosts an opinion based show, Ted is a washed up country singer, and he dodged the draft. What about that is an opinion?

The draft part is your opinion. It's not a fact.
snopes.com: Ted Nugent Dodged the Draft? (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp)

1967 - 1-S
1968 - 2-S
1969 - 1-A, then failed the exam, and was clasified as 1-Y
1972 - 4-F

[David88vert]

I've seen his show. He is the media equivalent to someone like Bill O'Reiley. He may have a lot to do with influencing the public opinion, the same way Bill O'Reiley would, and im pretty sure he has the top slot on Fox Entertainment, but that's it. I don't set out to watch either of those shows.

You should watch them, just to know their arguing points (I'm not talking about constantly watching them, just once in a while.)

So, why should we Americans listen to a foreign national tell us how to deal with our domestic affairs?

[.blank cd]

The draft part is your opinion. It's not a fact.
snopes.com: Ted Nugent Dodged the Draft? (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp)

1967 - 1-S
1968 - 2-S
1969 - 1-A, then failed the exam, and was clasified as 1-Y
1972 - 4-F

The only reason you think it's an opinion is because Nugent himself pretty much said it was all coincidental. Doesn't really matter, he's said enough stupid shit recently to make up for it.

[.blank cd]

You should watch them, just to know their arguing points (I'm not talking about constantly watching them, just once in a while.)I've only caught a couple interviews he's done. One being the recent interview with Alex Jones.


So, why should we Americans listen to a foreign national tell us how to deal with our domestic affairs?Why do you? His opinion is only as legitimate as you make it. How often do you look for an outsiders point of view in anything?

[Sinfix_15]

Nugent said of Obama getting re-elected that he would either be dead or in jail, what part of that has anything to do with Obama accomplishing something and Nugent defending his rights?

Clearly he was right. Obama did get re-elected and despite the comforting denials from people like you, Obama is seeking to ban guns and Ted Nugent will become a criminal if Obama accomplishes what he is trying to do.

What part of this do you not understand?

[David88vert]

The only reason you think it's an opinion is because Nugent himself pretty much said it was all coincidental. Doesn't really matter, he's said enough stupid shit recently to make up for it.

No, it is not a fact - that's why it is an opinion. As you have said, his previous comments leads you to not believe him and you discredit him, but then you want to rely on his other comments and claim them as factual?

I actually gave the facts as the Selective Service records have them. You would rather believe in the person that you openly chose to discredit? Make up your mind and quit pulling a Kerry.

[David88vert]

I've only caught a couple interviews he's done. One being the recent interview with Alex Jones.

Why do you? His opinion is only as legitimate as you make it. How often do you look for an outsiders point of view in anything?

Alex Jones is just as much of an extremist as Piers Morgan. I do not particularly care for him either.

Personally, I do look at many opinions, both foreign and domestic, but I also look at the facts, and make my own determinations. I have the ability to comprehend that Piers Morgan has an agenda, and is attempting to place his non-educated opinions into the American political spotlight. Perhaps you do not have the ability to recognize or comprehend that, or perhaps you chose to ignore it, as you failed to answer the question.

[.blank cd]

Perhaps you do not have the ability to recognize or comprehend that, or perhaps you chose to ignore it, as you failed to answer the question....but I answered the question. Did you read it?

[David88vert]

...but I answered the question. Did you read it?



The question was, "So, why should we Americans listen to a foreign national tell us how to deal with our domestic affairs?"

Is your answer really supposed to be, "His opinion is only as legitimate as you make it"? That's just a cop-out, not a real answer to the question.

[.blank cd]

The question was, "So, why should we Americans listen to a foreign national tell us how to deal with our domestic affairs?"

Is your answer really supposed to be, "His opinion is only as legitimate as you make it"? That's just a cop-out, not a real answer to the question.

What was the rest of the answer?

[David88vert]

What was the rest of the answer?

The rest of the typing from you were questions, not answers.

"Why do you? His opinion is only as legitimate as you make it. How often do you look for an outsiders point of view in anything?" - you

Generally, an interrogation mark denotes that it is a question. Do they not teach that in grade school and college anymore? If not, it explains why you appear to have such a hard time with basic concepts.

[.blank cd]

The rest of the typing from you were answers in the form of a question.Fixed that for you. I'm not gonna babysit you anymore while you try to conjure up a rational thought. Think about it, use your brain, or don't and we'll move on.

[David88vert]

Fixed that for you. I'm not gonna babysit you anymore while you try to conjure up a rational thought. Think about it, use your brain, or don't and we'll move on.

"Why do you?"
"How often do you look for an outsiders point of view in anything?"
These are not answers to questions. These are you trying to not look stupid. You failed.

You are a psuedo-intellectual - in the simplest of terms, a pretender.
You do not possess the intellectual ability to devise logical answers to simple questions; instead, you attempt to derail discussions onto tangents to appear to be more informed than you actually are.

[.blank cd]

"Why do you?"
"How often do you look for an outsiders point of view in anything?"
These are not answers to questions. These are you trying to not look stupid. You failed.

You are a psuedo-intellectual - in the simplest of terms, a pretender.
You do not possess the intellectual ability to devise logical answers to simple questions; instead, you attempt to derail discussions onto tangents to appear to be more informed than you actually are.

Since you have never devised a logical answer to a simple question, what does that make you? Looks like you're deflecting to me.

Just admit that you don't understand the answer, and we'll move on. Period. No one "derailed the discussion into a tangent" but you. Nice try.

[David88vert]

Since you have never devised a logical answer to a simple question, what does that make you? Looks like you're deflecting to me.

Just admit that you don't understand the answer, and we'll move on. Period. No one "derailed the discussion into a tangent" but you. Nice try.



Actually, I gave you an answer to your questions, but obviously, you could not comprehend it, which is the norm for you. You are the only one deflecting.
I cannot understand an answer that you did not provide. English 101 - you need to take it as a remedial course, due to your lack of knowledge of what an interrogation mark functions as.

Re-read:
"Personally, I do look at many opinions, both foreign and domestic, but I also look at the facts, and make my own determinations. I have the ability to comprehend that Piers Morgan has an agenda, and is attempting to place his non-educated opinions into the American political spotlight. Perhaps you do not have the ability to recognize or comprehend that, or perhaps you chose to ignore it, as you failed to answer the question"

[.blank cd]

The question was, "So, why should we Americans listen to a foreign national tell us how to deal with our domestic affairs?"

The long answer, since you insist on me holding your hand through this, since you've legitimized and rationalized in your own head Piers Morgans opinion, why do you yourself listen to the opinions of foreign nationals, or anyone else's opinion for that matter?

[David88vert]

The long answer, since you insist on me holding your hand through this, since you've legitimized and rationalized in your own head Piers Morgans opinion, why do you yourself listen to the opinions of foreign nationals, or anyone else's opinion for that matter?


I already answer that question (again, a question from you, not a statement).

Giving a national stage to a foreign national to discuss and attempt to influence US domestic policy and legislation with biased and not completely accurate information should be of a concern to anyone who values the US Constitution and the Amendments. Piers Morgan does not have appreciation for our founding fathers and what they setup at the start of this country, and he has made that abundantly clear to anyone who has listened to his opinions and viewpoints.
While our government cannot interfere with his free speech due to our protection via the First Amendment (nor should they), media conglomerates such as CNN can be held responsible for their support of particular viewpoints. CNN has shown particular bias in support of gun restrictions repeatedly, and Piers Morgan is their and Obama's media spokesman.

[Echonova]

WOAH WOAH WOAH Woah...





Woah.





Ted Nugent was not a country singer.

[Echonova]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/66147_473782189343704_586539678_n_zpse6bb1687.jpg

[.blank cd]

Giving a national stage to a foreign national to discuss and attempt to influence US domestic policy and legislation with biased and not completely accurate information should be of a concern to anyone who values the US Constitution and the Amendments. Piers Morgan does not have appreciation for our founding fathers and what they setup at the start of this country, and he has made that abundantly clear to anyone who has listened to his opinions and viewpoints.
While our government cannot interfere with his free speech due to our protection via the First Amendment (nor should they), media conglomerates such as CNN can be held responsible for their support of particular viewpoints. CNN has shown particular bias in support of gun restrictions repeatedly, and Piers Morgan is their and Obama's media spokesman.Piers Morgan is not a politician, he does not shape American policy. The only way he can shape American policy is if you vote based on his opinion. That's all there is to it. No one in Washington gives a shit what he says on his TV show. Piers comes from a place where gun culture is not prevalent. His opinion is based on the environment he was raised in. An environment where no one has guns, no one gives a shit about guns, and as a result, very few people get killed by them. Unfortunately, that's not how it is here. No one who values the constitution gives a shit what pundits have to say, and the smarter ones don't even let them shape their opinions. CNN itself is no more responsible for shaping American policy than Fox Entertainment.

[.blank cd]

WOAH WOAH WOAH Woah...





Woah.





Ted Nugent was not a country singer.

My fault, he was a "rock" "musician".

[Sinfix_15]

Piers Morgan is not a politician, he does not shape American policy. The only way he can shape American policy is if you vote based on his opinion. That's all there is to it. No one in Washington gives a shit what he says on his TV show. Piers comes from a place where gun culture is not prevalent. His opinion is based on the environment he was raised in. An environment where no one has guns, no one gives a shit about guns, and as a result, very few people get killed by them. Unfortunately, that's not how it is here. No one who values the constitution gives a shit what pundits have to say, and the smarter ones don't even let them shape their opinions. CNN itself is no more responsible for shaping American policy than Fox Entertainment.

Yeah, where Piers is from, if someone breaks into a house to rape and rob someone.... nobody gets shot, someone just gets raped and robbed.

But on the bright side..... you can sugarcoat that to support your gun agenda and comfort the rape victim by offering to pay for their abortion.

"theres no gun violence without guns" Just like there would be no break ins without doors.

[Sinfix_15]

Piers Morgan is not a politician, he does not shape American policy. The only way he can shape American policy is if you vote based on his opinion. That's all there is to it. No one in Washington gives a shit what he says on his TV show. Piers comes from a place where gun culture is not prevalent. His opinion is based on the environment he was raised in. An environment where no one has guns, no one gives a shit about guns, and as a result, very few people get killed by them. Unfortunately, that's not how it is here. No one who values the constitution gives a shit what pundits have to say, and the smarter ones don't even let them shape their opinions. CNN itself is no more responsible for shaping American policy than Fox Entertainment.

Look at the liberal down playing the biggest gun in their arsenal........ propaganda.

[Sinfix_15]

You'd think the same old tricks wouldnt be so effective.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/17974/large/logo1.png?1360005308
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYthjWw_ivDzc5Qke6tTLKV02yAkcwV Dt6f1k51sdyTRRq8zmLlQ

[David88vert]

Piers Morgan is not a politician, he does not shape American policy. The only way he can shape American policy is if you vote based on his opinion. That's all there is to it. No one in Washington gives a shit what he says on his TV show. Piers comes from a place where gun culture is not prevalent. His opinion is based on the environment he was raised in. An environment where no one has guns, no one gives a shit about guns, and as a result, very few people get killed by them. Unfortunately, that's not how it is here. No one who values the constitution gives a shit what pundits have to say, and the smarter ones don't even let them shape their opinions. CNN itself is no more responsible for shaping American policy than Fox Entertainment.

I agree with the above statement; however, I hope that you are aware that there are many individuals who are easily influenced by repetition of concepts that do not fully state the truth. This is where Piers Morgan's show comes into play.

Have you ever been to England? I have, and there is quite a bit of crime there. I've personally come into contact with more violence in London than New York. Violence is not solved by removing a single tool.

CNN is responsible cor what they broadcast, as is Fox. Pushing their agendas are attempts to shape policy through choosing what they wish to present as facts to voters. CNN is going the extra mile to bring in a foreign national to promote a biased view. You can deny the facts all that you want, but the facts remain the same.
Perhaps you should actually watch what CNN chooses to promote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/piers-morgan-gun-control-obama-proposal-speech-dana-loesch-alex-jones-scottie-hughes-2013-1
And if you thought that they were not biased: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/cnn-teases-rubio-segment-by-asking-if-water-swig-is-career-ender/
Also, look up Roland Martin, another like Piers Morgan: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/piers-morgan-challenges-herman-cain-to-public-debate-will-it-happen/

[Sinfix_15]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein's “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.


Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.


Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: NRA-ILA | Write Your Reps (http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx)


Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about thehistory of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit Home Page (http://www.GunBanFacts.com).

[Echonova]

Doesn't have a chance in hell of passing... But we all know progressives work in incremental-ism. Notice how he says “I am serious about some kind of control of weaponry. I am a realist, however, and am willing to accept some compromise,”.


Missouri House Democrats propose assault weapon ban - KansasCity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/16/4070798/missouri-house-democrats-propose.html)

[Elbow]

I'll care when it's a law.

[Sinfix_15]

I'll care when it's a law.

too late by then nancy boy.

[Elbow]

too late by then nancy boy.

I didn't say do anything, I said care.

If they ban guns that you want, keep them and encourage others to do the same, they won't charge everyone.

[Sinfix_15]

I didn't say do anything, I said care.

If they ban guns that you want, keep them and encourage others to do the same, they won't charge everyone.

When it becomes a money issue, rest assure the government will "charge everyone". If a law passes requiring you to pay $200 in taxes per restricted gun, they will start seeking them.

I wish they would go to the projects and make people pay $200 taxes per blunt, 40 ounce, bottle of gin, un attended child, lottery ticket, smart phone, set of rims, flat screen tv, or pair of jordans. Then we might put a dent in the real problem.

[Elbow]

When it becomes a money issue, rest assure the government will "charge everyone". If a law passes requiring you to pay $200 in taxes per restricted gun, they will start seeking them.

I wish they would go to the projects and make people pay $200 taxes per blunt, 40 ounce, bottle of gin, un attended child, lottery ticket, smart phone, set of rims, flat screen tv, or pair of jordans. Then we might put a dent in the real problem.

The real problem is white people.

[Sinfix_15]

The real problem is white people.

Crazy crackers.... what can you do with them?

[Elbow]

Crazy crackers.... what can you do with them?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OOLdR4MRlsQ/TCLpea2FGVI/AAAAAAAAAIs/mOrxILA_gBA/s1600/Noah+crushing+crackers.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Chicago police chief: Second Amendment supporters guilty of corruption - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/chicago-police-chief-second-amendment-supporters-g/)


The left calls supporting the constitution "corruption" and conservatism a mental illness....... interesting.

[91LudeSiT]

Kennesaw was mentioned in the comments. I love it out here. Knowing everybody in town is packing makes me feel right at home. Yes sure it doesn't stop all crime, but it certainly makes criminals think about committing their crimes elsewhere.

[Sinfix_15]

Democrat responding to women who feel carrying a gun protects them from being raped.

“It’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones; it’s why we have the whistles — because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody,” -Joe Salazar

So ladies..... if anyone ever attempts to rape you..... politely inform them that you're in a no rape zone and then proceed to the nearest call box to alert authorities.

This is the fucking retarded brain of a liberal democrat...... these are the stupid fucks currently running our country.........

[.blank cd]

This is the fucking retarded brain of a liberal democrat...... these are the stupid fucks currently running our country.........You do know politics doesnt always work on this left right paradigm that you think it does, right?

[Sinfix_15]

You do know politics doesnt always work on this left right paradigm that you think it does, right?

Your president strives for division and then you pretend division doesnt exist. This is as left/right as things have ever been.


respond to the content of the post....... you happy with your wife running to a call box or blowing a rape whistle?

[.blank cd]

Your president strives for division and then you pretend division doesnt exist. This is as left/right as things have ever been.Lol. I don't think it works like that broski.



respond to the content of the post....... you happy with your wife running to a call box or blowing a rape whistle?Ive taught my wife exactly how to handle a rapist without a gun and to make sure he never rapes again.

[91LudeSiT]

Forgotten have we about the Republican congressman that said that a woman's body has the ability to reject a pregnancy conceived during a legitimate rape?

I hate both sides, I think both Democrats and Republicans are absolutely worthless. It must be a job requirement in Washington to be an utter boob.

[.blank cd]

Forgotten have we about the Republican congressman that said that a woman's body has the ability to reject a pregnancy conceived during a legitimate rape?

I hate both sides, I think both Democrats and Republicans are absolutely worthless. It must be a job requirement in Washington to be an utter boob.

I don't think you understand how IA politics work yet. Republicans get an intellectual hall pass because the hive mind thinks they represent the hard working man. Lol

[91LudeSiT]

I don't think you understand how IA politics work yet. Republicans get an intellectual hall pass because the hive mind thinks they represent the hard working man. Lol

The working man who wants nothing but the right to commit illegitimate rape.

[Elbow]

Democrat responding to women who feel carrying a gun protects them from being raped.

“It’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones; it’s why we have the whistles — because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody,” -Joe Salazar

So ladies..... if anyone ever attempts to rape you..... politely inform them that you're in a no rape zone and then proceed to the nearest call box to alert authorities.

This is the fucking retarded brain of a liberal democrat...... these are the stupid fucks currently running our country.........

A. It's funny someone would bring up rape while bashing the left after the comments made by republicans pertaining to rape.
B. You seem to once again think every single whack job that claims to be a part of either party represents the common mindset of said party.

When will you ever get out of your box?

Never.

[Echonova]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFdN7WIL0R4

[91LudeSiT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFdN7WIL0R4

Fucking laffo.

[Sinfix_15]

A. It's funny someone would bring up rape while bashing the left after the comments made by republicans pertaining to rape.
B. You seem to once again think every single whack job that claims to be a part of either party represents the common mindset of said party.

When will you ever get out of your box?

Never.

Republicans deliver the right message very poorly. Democrats read the wrong message off a teleprompter with Kanye West on stage.

[Sinfix_15]

Forgotten have we about the Republican congressman that said that a woman's body has the ability to reject a pregnancy conceived during a legitimate rape?

I hate both sides, I think both Democrats and Republicans are absolutely worthless. It must be a job requirement in Washington to be an utter boob.


I don't think you understand how IA politics work yet. Republicans get an intellectual hall pass because the hive mind thinks they represent the hard working man. Lol

If you think both sides are morons....... i do too.... then you should vote republican. Republicans want to shrink government, democrats want to grow the moron machine and give it more control over your life.

[Sinfix_15]

i got a laugh out of this
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDmWCIZCEAARqb3.jpg:large

[Sinfix_15]

Lol. I don't think it works like that broski.


Ive taught my wife exactly how to handle a rapist without a gun and to make sure he never rapes again.

I'd love to hear this technique, im positive i will get a good laugh at your expense.

[Elbow]

Republicans deliver the right message very poorly. Democrats read the wrong message off a teleprompter with Kanye West on stage.

Yeah there was no right in those rape statements.

[Sinfix_15]

Yeah there was no right in those rape statements.

Democrats always love to take a comment and manipulate it in to meaning something it didnt.

[.blank cd]

Democrats always love to take a comment and manipulate it in to meaning something it didnt.LOL

"The female body has ways to shut down a legitimate rape"

How am I supposed to take that, even though there's nothing about that sentence that's scientifically accurate?

[Sinfix_15]

LOL

"The female body has ways to shut down a legitimate rape"

How am I supposed to take that, even though there's nothing about that sentence that's scientifically accurate?

thank you for doing exactly what i accused you of and confirming my comment.

[Sinfix_15]

now lets hear these BlankCD rape defense tricks without using guns.

[.blank cd]

thank you for doing exactly what i accused you of and confirming my comment.

Precisely. No answer.

[Sinfix_15]

He said, during "legitimate rape" a woman's body can naturally avoid pregnancy and that pregnancy from rape is not that common. "legitimate rape" being a very very very poor choice of words to describe a violent rape attack. There's a difference between getting too drunk at a party and someone breaking in your house and holding a knife to your throat. Stress actually is a factor in female ovulation and stress can prevent a woman from getting pregnant, a doctor would confirm this. The problem with his comment is that he is misinformed, ovulation doesnt happen during sex so the stress level at the time of conception would not prevent pregnancy. A woman could ovulate that morning and be raped that night and get pregnant. His comment was in the context of being anti-abortion. I would summarize his comment as "pregnancy from a rape is not that common and does not change my view on abortions being wrong"

While i do not agree with this comment at all...... seeing as how i am pro choice in every regard, there is no need to manipulate the comment to be something it isnt. He is a bible thumping christian who doesnt believe in abortion.... no matter what. You either support that or you dont. However wrong he is..... there is purpose behind his opinion, something you will struggle to find in equally ignorant comments from a democrat.

Example..... telling women to piss on themselves to deter rapist. Show me the silver lining in that.

[Sinfix_15]

Precisely. No answer.

too soon junior.


still waiting on your anti-rape tips for women.

[Elbow]

Lol anyone that can justify that comment is just trying to stick up for a lost cause. I don't know a single republican who agreed with any of the rape comments or that could even begin to justify them. This just shows we have complete morons working on both sides.

I've never even heard the pee on yourself one. That's almost as stupid.

[Sinfix_15]

Lol anyone that can justify that comment is just trying to stick up for a lost cause. I don't know a single republican who agreed with any of the rape comments or that could even begin to justify them. This just shows we have complete morons working on both sides.

I've never even heard the pee on yourself one. That's almost as stupid.

Republicans dont "agree" with that comment because anytime someone says something embarrassing the escape plan is always to step away from it. It's not about being right or wrong or correcting it, it's about minimizing damage. Trying to explain the comment just gives it more air time and gives the democrats more opportunities to manipulate it. It's a strategy, you miss a shot.... on to the next one.

His comment about rape is not entirely false...... he's misguided, but his opinion is factually based and is one that a LARGE portion of our christian society actually believes in. He just said it in a very poor way that is hard to accept. We are a christian nation..... like it or not, i dont.... and christians do not believe in abortions. My point is....... if someone says something stupid....... take it for what it is, dont manipulate it to be something else. His comment is stupid, but take it for what it is.

Republicans are morons.... but a lot of comments are someone with good intentions saying the wrong thing. Cant find the same purpose in equally ignorant comments from democrats. They're wolves in sheeps clothing.... it's like watching a shamwow commercial.... they've mastered the "pitch".... even though their product is garbage.

[Elbow]

I almost agreed with you until you said all democrats are morons and only some republicans are. You're really that stupid to think every democrat is the same just as every Christian believes that abortion shouldn't be allowed?

[Sinfix_15]

Example on the last page.... blank says "The female body has ways to shut down a legitimate rape"

There's a big difference in what blank said and what he said.... blank is fully aware of that, but he's already conditioned to his ways. Blank took the comment and framed it in the most demonizing way possible. How blank delivered it, would not accurately quote the comment.

[Sinfix_15]

I almost agreed with you until you said all democrats are morons and only some republicans are. You're really that stupid to think every democrat is the same just as every Christian believes that abortion shouldn't be allowed?

I said that????

[Elbow]

Example on the last page.... blank says "The female body has ways to shut down a legitimate rape"

There's a big difference in what blank said and what he said.... blank is fully aware of that, but he's already conditioned to his ways. Blank took the comment and framed it in the most demonizing way possible, one that blank literally delivered it, would not be accurately quote the comment.

I don't care who says what or how it's said. It's complete BS no matter how it was meant. Even the way you put it is a punch in the face to females.

[Sinfix_15]

I dont think 100% of democrats are morons. I do think a large portion of both parties are morons.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't care who says what or how it's said. It's complete BS no matter how it was meant. Even the way you put it is a punch in the face to females.

Yes..... but his reasoning is being anti-abortion..... a lot of people are anti-abortion, but when they have the vulgar details revealed to them, they second guess themselves.

Telling women to piss themselves to deter a rapist is the same punch in the face..... but what belief are they defending when they say that?

[Sinfix_15]

Irony.......

Democrats demonize republicans for thinking an unborn child deserves to live, while at the same time protecting the life of a rapist.

[.blank cd]

Example on the last page.... blank says "The female body has ways to shut down a legitimate rape"

There's a big difference in what blank said and what he said.... blank is fully aware of that, but he's already conditioned to his ways. Blank took the comment and framed it in the most demonizing way possible. How blank delivered it, would not accurately quote the comment.
Um, no. No theres not...


“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,(which BTW, its really not) if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

-Todd Akin to KTVI-TV in St. Louis, which is exactly what I said. The transitive property applies in this case. Sorry bro.

[Elbow]

Irony.......

Democrats demonize republicans for thinking an unborn child deserves to live, while at the same time protecting the life of a rapist.

Who's saving the life of a rapist?

There you go again with your every democrat and every republican story. Close minded fool.

[Sinfix_15]

Um, no. No theres not...



-Todd Akin to KTVI-TV in St. Louis

You're too smart to be this stupid.


I explained it already. He's talking about conception during rape and his belief on abortions. But................................... technically....... if we're going to interpret things literally..... as people like you enjoy doing only when it's convenient to your cause.....

A woman's body does have a way of (attempting) to "shut that whole thing down"..... you know.... kicking, screaming..... or as democrats advise.... pissing on urself.

speaking of................ why dont you share with us your tips for defending rape without a gun? your profound advice on the matter could possibly prevent someone from being raped.

























almost forgot..... for Simon.

***Sinfix's comment does not apply to 100% of all democrats inhabiting the planet known as earth.

[Sinfix_15]

Who's saving the life of a rapist?

There you go again with your every democrat and every republican story. Close minded fool.

omfg you're so simple...... you certainly fit the description of a stereotypical democrat. You go to great effort to make something someone says mean something different that you can bitch about.

Let me go ahead and put this disclaimer out for you since you're too simple to grasp it.... when i say something like "democrats like pepsi"

i can say that without meaning 100% of every democrat walking the mother fucking planet............................................ ........






When someone says not to shoot rapist...... not to use deadly force vs a rapist............................ they are taking action to protect the lives of rapist. when they say.... you dont need to shoot a rapist.... if you piss on yourself they might leave you alone.... thats protecting the life of a rapist....

[Sinfix_15]

Just for you Simon.... from now on...... anytime i say "democrats" i will make sure to apply a disclaimer.... since you're too simple minded to grasp the obvious.

















**Sinfix's comment does not apply to 100% of all democrats inhabiting the planet known as earth.

[Elbow]

omfg you're so simple...... you certainly fit the description of a stereotypical democrat. You go to great effort to make something someone says mean something different that you can bitch about.

Let me go ahead and put this disclaimer out for you since you're too simple to grasp it.... when i say something like "democrats like pepsi"

i can say that without meaning 100% of every democrat walking the mother fucking planet............................................ ........






When someone says not to shoot rapist...... not to use deadly force vs a rapist............................ they are taking action to protect the lives of rapist. when they say.... you dont need to shoot a rapist.... if you piss on yourself they might leave you alone.... thats protecting the life of a rapist....

If I say black people like fried chicken, doesn't that seem to mean all?

Who says not to use force against a rapist?

[Sinfix_15]

If I say black people like fried chicken, doesn't that seem to mean all?

Who says not to use force against a rapist?

Anyone with half a brain can understand that comment without feeling the need to say "heyyyyyyyy guise!!!!!! wait a minute, i have a black friend who is a vegetarian!!!"

Anyone who says "black people like fried chicken, watermelon, grape drink, tyler perry movies" or whatever the fuck else.... understands that not every mother fucking black person fits that criteria...... good lord man............................. really?



The answer to your question is already inside of this thread.... i grow tired of spelling shit out for you. If i have to draw colorful pictures for you on a poster for you to keep up then it's a waste of time bothering with you. Follow current events and you will know what we're all talking about. Its annoying to comment on something that happened, then have to argue with you about your opinion when you're unaware of what we're even talking about. If you participated at all in any form of social media, you would be aware of the comments that we are debating.

at the very worst...... just goggle any comment i make and see if anything grabs your attention......