Defend your right to own a car.

[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]

[.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.

[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...-hughes-2013-1
And if you thought that they were not biased: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-career-ender/
Also, look up Roland Martin, another like Piers Morgan: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/piers-mor...ill-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


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.

[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

[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?

[Sinfix_15]

Chicago police chief: Second Amendment supporters guilty of corruption - Washington Times


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]

[91LudeSiT]

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

[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.