Steele Attacks Obama’s Assault Weapons Ban After Previously Calling Such Weapons ‘Overkill’
Steele Attacks Obama’s Assault Weapons Ban After Previously Calling Such Weapons ‘Overkill’
Late last month, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would be seeking to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. “As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said.
RNC chair Michael Steele sent an e-mail to supporters yesterday criticizing the decision and claiming that it is “step one” in the Obama administration’s grand plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
The Obama Administration has revealed its intention to reinstate the so-called “assault” gun ban — Step One of their plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Having already taken advantage of our country’s current economic woes to speed the largest, most pork-laden spending spree in history through the Democrat-controlled Congress, the Obama team is again using fear tactics to impose bad policy.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced his desire to once again deny law abiding Americans their 2nd Amendment rights, using the ongoing violence in Mexico as justification.
Of course, Obama does not plan on repealing the 2nd Amendment. In fact, as FactCheck (and Holder) noted, Obama specifically stated during the campaign that he supports it. “Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms,” his campaign said.
But also, Steele’s criticism rings hollow as just two years ago, he stated his opposition to assault weapons, calling them “overkill“:
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?
STEELE: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you’re going hunting? That’s overkill. [...] If you want to talk about gun control, that’s where you need to start. We’ve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it’s about how we enforce the law.
So does this mean that Steele also wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Step One of their plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment.”
March 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm– I can’t wait to hear about step 2 of the plan…
Steele should go hunting with Dick Cheney, that will take care of that. Cheney will call the shooting a mistake and move on as Drug King Rush Limbaugh will quickly replace the Coward man name Steele.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pmThis from the man who recently stated people shouldn’t believe anything the Republicans say?
Ok, I’m down with that.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pmSteele Attacks Obama’s Assault Weapons Ban After Previously Calling Such Weapons ‘Overkill’
– - Steele sounds as half-hearted as putting a bumper sticker on the inside of the car.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pmSounds like a desperate attempt to change the subject from Lemmingbaugh and to rally the NRA for the Republicancers. When Steele’s lips aren’t affixed to Lemmingbaugh’s ass, maybe Steele could offer an opinion on machine guns from the US winding up in Mexican drug cartel hands.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pmI’m DONE commenting about anything else Steele says. He’s a Moron and he’s idiotic. THAT’S IT – NO MORE.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pmLeave my assault weapons alone! Why, I c’n fire my initials into every piece ‘o game I aim at ‘fore it hits the ground. I’m proud that the ‘publicans are protecting my right to do that.
Once…I shot the deer right out from under the antlers. Thass all that was left…jus the antlers…Haw!
March 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pmNo one is suggesting we repeal the 2nd amendment. Including the duplicitous Mr. Steele.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:40 pmAssault weapons have no legitimate use in the US; people in rural areas can own rifles, shotguns and handguns, as can persons in urban communities (although a city residant wanting or needing a rifle is beyond me).
If there is a good reason to own an assault weapon in the US, I haven’t heard it.
As for Steele, it should be plain to see that he is like Lieberman in the way that he steps out the door daily to see which way the wind is blowing, and how he may benefit.
Aw look at him. Isn’t that cute? He is trying to be relevant. And simply because he said one thing one time, does not mean he cannot change it on a whim. He goes which ever way the wind blows. He is trying desperately to find an issue with which to run. A way to garner some support from his own party. The easiest way is to attack the President.
Like most of these right wing hypocrites, he forgets what he says from one time to another. The wonderful thing is there is always someone with a camera or a previous quote. And when it pops up, they still usually deny having said it. It is always something that the left took out of Context.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:41 pmClose the border? Damn what will all those spoiled brat white suburbia kids do from entertainment? Come on know we wouldn’t want to infringe of Justin and Bethany’s coke fun…
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pmMichael Steele, man of steel….wool.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm10.fred garvin Says: Kick ‘em out and close the border. Problem solved. It would save our economy, too.
I agree! The sooner we get rid ‘o them damn republicans, the better!
The mexicans have been sucking the American tit for way too long.
Hey fredgar, no need to bring your momma into this…
March 10th, 2009 at 5:44 pmSomeone is pushing the zap button on the back of Steele’s head again. This man is a dish rag. He has no spine at all.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pmIt’s truly disturbing that Republicans continue to get the vast majority of the media’s attention. Even here on TP, if you scan the headlines, it’s all about Republicans and their whining, distorting, and smearing. I wish the media would stop reporting on their many lies, bellowings, & scams and give us some real news– facts, truth, research.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:50 pmLove America
March 10th, 2009 at 5:52 pmWe must be an angry lot
Count the bullet holes
17. Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
So what’s the advantage of owning an assault weapon?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:52 pmA rocket launcher…
March 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pmWith 6000, no I didn’t accidentally hit the zero key too many times, yes 6000 civis dead in Mexico’s drug war since last January, and with most of the assault rifles confiscated coming from the good ol’ USA, it was no question a good idea to ban the guns. Maybe now we can talk the “L” word. You know, the other “L” word.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pmWe are a nation of hyper aggressive, sexually obsessed and equally repressed, anti cultural, anti intellectual, consumer minded, boobs. How is a gun ban going to change that?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:57 pmIMHO …Obama should be very carefull about any Changes in Gun Control Policies.
Obviously, a fully automatic Assault Rifle should be regulated…but many Modified Military Rifles are preferred by Hunters in my neck of the woods….largely because Vets are familiar with them.
A modified, Semi-Automatic Military Rifle is Not that different from any other High Powered Deer rifle.
Obama persuaded lots of Hunters in the Midwest to vote for him. Many thought Bush was a disaster, but were worried that Obama and the Democrats would ” take their guns away”.
I won several of these folks over , by posing the Question… “What has changed with respect to your being able to purchase a particular Gun in the last 10 years”.
When they couldn’t come up with any changes, they tended to calm down and vote for Obama.
If Obama and Holder are NOT carefull and nuanced , in their approach to this assault rifle ban, they could be handing Ammunition over to the NRA.
If Al Gore would have been more carefull about his Gun Policy, he probably would have carried more Rural swing states, and won convincingly in 2000.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:57 pm“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
If one wanted to follow the absolute letter of that statement (we’ll ignore the part about the “well-regulated militia” for the moment, since the gun nuts always do), one could say this means there should be no restrictions on weaponry of any kind. Anybody can own and carry any type of gun they want to. Anywhere. Anytime. Want to brandish a rocket launcher? No problem — you have a constitutional right to do so. Want a missile silo in your back yard, armed with a nuclear warhead? You may have to be a multi-billionaire to afford one, but if you can, why not? After all, it’s YOUR RIGHT, and it shall not be infringed!
I would think that even the staunchest gun enthusiast would draw the line at Bill Gates having his own atom bomb. Or even people wandering around a shopping mall with rocket launchers. Nobody is interpreting the second amendment in the extreme manner I illustrated in the above paragraph. So where should the line be drawn? Steele appears to be conflicted on this issue. Maybe it just depends on who’s giving him his marching orders that day.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:57 pmPer Steele: Attorney General Eric Holder announced his desire to once again deny law abiding Americans their 2nd Amendment rights, using the ongoing violence in Mexico as justification.
First of all, someone please show me where the 2nd Amendment says Americans can own assault weapons? Huge difference between the types of guns available when that Amendment was written and the hardware available. And “ongoing violence in Mexico?” Excuse me…is he aware that 90% of the weapons used by both the drug cartels and the other criminals in Mexico come across the border from the U.S.? 90%!!!!
March 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pmDamnit. I demand my rocket launcher!
March 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pm21. Dr. Hussein Matt Says: Advantage compared to what?
Okay, you admonished another poster and proclaimed your possession of a “so-called assault rifle.” I’m asking you why your specific choice of this particular firearm. Is it semi-automatic?
Its advantages over non-assault models, etc. The ‘assault’ feature that makes it a preferable choice.
Expound.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:00 pmI also need some armor piercing bullets. We have some tough ass deer in these parts…
March 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pmNo one is trying to obtain rocket launchers
March 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm—-
Ah hello…
I heard somewhere that years ago a tour of FBI headquarters once included a stop on the firing range where you could light off a Thompson submachine gun.
I also heard it was discontinued due to lack of interest.
Anecdotal.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pm32. dbadass Says: I also need some armor piercing bullets. We have some tough ass deer in these parts…
Nah, just hollow points. You’ll both hit and partially field dress what you aim at in a split second…
March 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pmPeople, we are adopting the rightwing’s method of problem solving. Narrow, simple and WRONG.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:05 pmSo I do need the armor peircing ones it seems
March 10th, 2009 at 6:07 pmI am neither frightened nor illogical
March 10th, 2009 at 6:07 pmNot sure but I believe the assault weapon ban is for things like Uzis and MAC10’s, short barreled guns that kick butt in a close in firefight. The street versions are semi auto only and wouldn’t be of much more use than the average handgun with the exception of larger magazines.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:08 pm34. Dr. Hussein Matt Says: The term “assault rifle” is a misnomer just like “embryonic stem cell research”. Both terms are used to make something rather benign to sound scary. Give me some precise example of what you would like compared. Expound.
You seem oddly reticent after the earlier rebuke to another poster. My questions are clear, and I do understand the ambiguity of the term ‘assault weapon’ which is why I’m seeking clarification from you. You own a “so-called assault rifle.”
Is it semi-automatic?
Why is this rifle superior to non ‘assault’ classified weapons?
What is the advantage of this assault rifle that attracted you?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:10 pmGeez Dr. Hussein Matt, obviously you have an opinion that’s contrary to a lot of people’s on here. Please explain your case. I’m pretty ignorant of gun control statistics, have a little discomfort with American/gun issues, but I’d honestly like to hear your side.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:12 pmDr. You say you have never seen a armor peircing round in your life. I guess you have never been to a gun show or swap meet.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:14 pmGenerically blaming guns and assault weapons in particular is like saying something bigoted about a minority group. Or making claims about stem cell research being an attempt at genetically engineering the ‘perfect’ human.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:15 pmMichael Steele has explained away his failure to pass the Maryland State Bar Exam, claiming that he “took it on a whim.” Yet his own words betray the real reason: the man is simply not intelligent. Period.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pmThe way to end gun violence is to encourage programs that teach problem solving skills, and also to promote safe gun usage and care.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pmSteele showed how low he would go in his disgraceful conduct in his and Ehrlich’s run for reelection when he bussed in street people from Philly to hand out Repugnant agitprop lies and then even stiffed the poor henchmen he bussed in. Expect no consistency of principle from this petty crook.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pmA very good start, Dru P.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:17 pmfred garvin Says:
You are just ignorant Garvin. The only thing you add to this forum is stupidity
March 10th, 2009 at 6:17 pmD: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:18 pmR: It can be.
D: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
R: No it isn’t.
D: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
R: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
D: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
R: Yes it is!
D: No it isn’t!
R: Yes it is!
D: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
R: No it isn’t.
D: It is.
Banning guns is even more silly than banning chainsaws because they cut down trees. They are tools, ones that can be very dangerous if mistreated. A hammer in the forehead is just as deadly.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:19 pm38.Dr. Hussein Matt Says: Your ignorance on the topic is frightening.
It was intended as a joke, HM. You can stop waving your gun at the monitor…
March 10th, 2009 at 6:20 pmDr. Don’t get me wrong, but you can buy almost anything you want at gun shows and swap meets. It may not be legal but you can buy it.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pmOr are you just going to continue looking foolish on the topic?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:23 pm—
Please explain how I look foolish. I am simply moving us toward the simple question of our there reasonable limits of ownership of weaponry and if so what should they be? I think the foolishness arise when agendas get in the way of logic.
You heard it here first, children. G’nite.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:24 pm—-
What the hell is this? So a discussion of a topic important to you arises and it brings out this? I haven’t seem anyone be disrespectful to you in anyway…
Having a universal healthcare program that covers, various counseling(anger/marriage)services will also go a long way to reducing violence, gun and other forms.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm48. Dr. Hussein Matt Says: No, your questions are not clear. They are vague and using language that is inaccurate and founded in misnomers.
They are most clear, HM:
It’s a semi-automatic. I bought it because it’s made very well made, it’s light, easy to clean, compact, it’s accurate, and the ammo is cheap. I can’t give you comparisons/advantages to every rifle in existence since I don’t have access to them.
I never asked for a comparison, and certainly not to every rifle in existence but the advantages/features that attracted you; similarly, say, to advantages of a car over standard models, manufacturers, etc. Clear.
Nevertheless, I can see plainly your impatience and petulant attitude to simple inquiries makes you the ideal choice to own a semi-automatic weapon.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pmDr. Matt, Really, it sounds like you have an AR-15. Does the tumbling .223 round appeal to you so you can shoot the deer in the ass and the bullet comes out it’s head. I got a fifth award rifle expert badge in the Marines and could have gone on the Marine Corps rifle team so I’m somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. A semi-automatic rifle is much less accurate than a Mauser type bolt action rifle. Maybe it’s too much trouble to pull a bolt back? Remington and Winchester both make semi-automatic rifles that are just or more accurate than the AR-15/M-16. Of course they don’t look as impressive when you are posing in front of the mirror, do they. I prefer Weatherby rifles, but I only shoot paper targets, not living animals. My preference. If ammo cost is an issue, reload your own bullets.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pmI would guess that it is a sensitive subject and rather than respond inappropriately the good dr has chosen a time out.
Just a guess.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:30 pmI still haven’t heard a reason why an American citizen feels the need for an assault weapon like an M-16, Uzi or an AK-47.
I am not re-entering the argument here – I am looking for an answer.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:30 pmThe problem with gun bans is they don’t work. As long as gun company’s are free to produce them, all bans do is move these weapons into the shadow world. Like I said earlier, you can buy almost anything you want at a good gun show or swap meet. You want a AK 47, SKS, Street sweeper, Mac 10, AR 15 no problem. As long as company’s produce them, you can buy them.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:32 pmMarie, why do some people want to own a 57 Chevy? A Faberge egg? A Jackson Pollock painting? People collect or own things for lots of reasons and they are seldom homicidal or warped because of it.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:33 pmHoodathunk Says:
Marie, why do some people want to own a 57 Chevy? A Faberge egg? A Jackson Pollock painting? People collect or own things for lots of reasons and they are seldom homicidal or warped because of it.
I don’t believe too many homicides have been carried out with Faberge Eggs, Hooda. You may want to re-thunk your analogy.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:35 pmHoodathunk but what if I wish to collect zip guns, short barreled shotguns, and rocket launchers? Again the question remains should there be limits and what should they be? I collect animal parts for educational purposes. Still I am restricted in what I may possess and who I obtain that which I may possess.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:35 pmThe term assault weapon does not mean the same as assault rifle. The latter is heavily regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act, and has very specific meaning, including selectable fire modes, including fully automatic or burst. The former has a fluid meaning depending on the version of (proposed) legislation, and is defined simply by cosmetics.
Please, at least look the terms up on wikipedia. No need to sound like the “Russ-republics.”
March 10th, 2009 at 6:36 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
misshusseinmolly Says
I would think that even the staunchest gun enthusiast would draw the line at Bill Gates having his own atom bomb.
You sound like a reich-winger with your completely irrelevant and obtuse tangents. No one is trying to obtain rocket launchers and atom bombs. Attempt to stay on topic and keep your hysteria to a minimum.
The only real hysteria here has been your over-the-top emotional response to the subject of assault weapons.
Maybe you could explain where you, personally, draw the line on appropriate weapons. Based on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which weapons are suitable for civilian ownership and which are not?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:38 pmwho should be how
March 10th, 2009 at 6:38 pmgummitch, missed the point didn’t ya?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:38 pmAn M-16 is an assault rifle. You could own one, but the regulations are severe and expensive, and covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act, as is the “Tommy Gun” the gangsters used!
Certain models of the AR-15 were defined as an assault weapon, based solely on their appearance. The are semi-automatic; you pull the trigger once, and it fires one round.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:39 pm69.Hoodathunk Says: Marie, why do some people want to own a 57 Chevy? A Faberge egg? A Jackson Pollock painting? People collect or own things for lots of reasons and they are seldom homicidal or warped because of it.
Let’s not go overboard. Matt’s reaction was hardly rational or informative. Comparing aesthetic preferences is different from performance, which is what I inquired about, What I got for my questions was irritation and anger management issues.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:40 pmMachinery is machinery. The main difference between a Harley and an M16 is what the thing was designed to do. Collecting zip guns, short barreled shotguns and rocket launchers is perfectly fine if their primary purpose has been blocked.
We don’t have to deal with roadside bombs and such because we recognize, as a society, these things are too dangerous to be readily available. Yeah, freedom is a great thing but it also carries responsibility. No one ever has total freedom, that’s why they put the bit in about to promote the general welfare.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:43 pmangels81 Says:
gummitch, missed the point didn’t ya?
How?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:45 pmThe main difference between a Harley and an M16 is what the thing was designed to do. Collecting zip guns, short barreled shotguns and rocket launchers is perfectly fine if their primary purpose has been blocked.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:47 pm—
I am not sure I am following you. So should we block the primary purpose of the “assault weapon” however we wish to define this and if so what would that mean?
i get dizzy watching
mike running around in circles.
can’t he ever make up his mind?
:|
March 10th, 2009 at 6:48 pmangels81 Says:
gummitch, missed the point didn’t ya?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Looks pretty en pointe to me.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pmgummitch, The point was that some people are gun collectors and that doesn’t make them homicidal. There no different then someone who collects cars.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pmCase in point…the M16. Defined as an assault weapon because it was designed as a combat weapon. Primary purpose was to spit a shitload of bullets. Sale of automatic fire weapons is illegal in the use, thus blocking the primary purpose of the M16.
Does this make it useless? Nope, its still a pretty good gun, as guns go.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:52 pm83. angels81 Says: gummitch, The point was that some people are gun collectors and that doesn’t make them homicidal. There no different then someone who collects cars.
I dunno…angry and unstable aren’t traits I’d be as concerned about in a car collector unless I was walking along the road…
..but in a gun collector?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:53 pmangels81:
March 10th, 2009 at 6:54 pmSo would it follow that someone who collects infectuous microbes is just the same as well and if so why restrict them. Again the question is are there boundaries and if so what should they be. I have no problem whatsoever as to reasonable protection of the rights of firearm owners nor do I have any problems with reasonable restrictions upon the ownership of weaponry.
angels81 Says:
gummitch, The point was that some people are gun collectors and that doesn’t make them homicidal. There no different then someone who collects cars.
And my point, which you apparently missed, is that cars and Faberge eggs are not weapons. It’s not a useful analogy.
Trust me, I understand collector’s impulse. And my best friend is a gun nut; he has an enormous gun vault full of all sorts of them, mostly handguns. His only answer about why he buys them is “I wanted one of those.” Which I’m fine with. Him I trust, for one thing. But it’s naive in the extreme to think that everyone with a large collection of guns is a “collector”, and the ramifications for getting that wrong is considerably more dangerous than egg collectors.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:54 pmAnd in case anyone is wondering, I haven’t owned a gun since 1979. And I personally have no desire to own one again. But I can recognize and appreciate good mechanical design.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:54 pmThe question was asked, and I’m paraphrasing, “why would anyone need an AK47?” Well, that is a good question. The answer lies in why does pretty much every citizen in the old eastern bloc have their own assault rifle but there aren’t near the same number of gun deaths as in America or the Americas. Didn’t the Columbine kids buy their guns? You have to wonder in maybe some Americans just can’t be trusted with them. We are very war-like.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:55 pm88. Hoodathunk Says: And in case anyone is wondering, I haven’t owned a gun since 1979. And I personally have no desire to own one again. But I can recognize and appreciate good mechanical design.
Me too. That’s why I own a racing bicycle…
March 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pmNot trying to be snide but, gummitch which would you rather take in the leg? A round from a gun or a 57 Chevy? More people are killed by motor vehicles every year than guns.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pmI for one would like as much objective information as possible…can anyone provide links to homicide statistics due to firearms? international comparisons? studies? there’s obviously a lot of biased stuff that pops up in a cold Google search.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm91.Hoodathunk Says: Not trying to be snide but, gummitch which would you rather take in the leg? A round from a gun or a 57 Chevy? More people are killed by motor vehicles every year than guns.
Now, now…this isn’t quite a legitimate question. There are fewer murders with cars than with guns, for one.
Two, a neighbor gets pissed off at you, he’s less likely to drive a car through your kitchen window than a bullet. Guns are handier in that respect and rash impulse lends itself more to guns than autos.
That is just a quantifiable truism.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:01 pmHoodathunk Says:
Not trying to be snide but, gummitch which would you rather take in the leg? A round from a gun or a 57 Chevy? More people are killed by motor vehicles every year than guns.
How many people are killed by 57 Chevys, though?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:02 pmSeeing as most gun killings in this country are done with hand guns and not so called assault weapons, the ban is nothing more then making politician’s able to say they care about gun violence, without really doing anything. A full auto AK-47 or M16 is already illegal.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:03 pmHoodathunk Says:
Not trying to be snide but, gummitch which would you rather take in the leg? A round from a gun or a 57 Chevy? More people are killed by motor vehicles every year than guns.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I’d rather take a round from a Faberge egg — much lower mortality rate. ;)
March 10th, 2009 at 7:04 pmTrue, guns are viewed as weapons, cars aren’t. A small thing we can be thankful for. And my apologies, gummitch, it was an unfair comparison. But neither guns, cars, eggs or chainsaws are the problem. It’s our attitude. Guns just happen to be a real hot button for some.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:04 pmCars and guns apples and oranges. America has an old west mentality. I have no criminal record and I had to first, go to the police station and buy a purchasers permit, that came with a background check, to buy a handgun that isn’t very accurate outside of 20 yards. What did it take to buy rifle. The Gander Mountain employee says to a kid “are you 18 years or older?” The kid answers no. The Gander Mountain employee says “let’s try this again, are you 18 years or older?”
March 10th, 2009 at 7:05 pmMore people are killed by motor vehicles every year than guns.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:05 pm– I don’t get this either. If we don’t count all those “accidental” shootings and count how many times a gun is used to kill or harm someone to how many times an automobile is chosen as the tool of harm would this premise still stand?
Zooey, I’d prefer a Cadbury egg.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:06 pmObesity kills more people than guns. There should be a ban on donuts.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pm96.Zooey Says: I’d rather take a round from a Faberge egg — much lower mortality rate. ;)
I dunno, the yolks must be from around 1885…they might be the quickest death yet.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:08 pmWe also license car drivers and require them to pass certain tests from time to time. As well as impose age limits on drivers.
We also require car owners to be insured.
Shouldn’t gun ownership and use be just as regulated, if not more so?
Other countries seem to do just fine with much stricter gun ownership policies…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
March 10th, 2009 at 7:09 pmGuns and Bibles. No wonder this country is going down the toilet.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:09 pmOkay so should I be allowed my rocket launcher or not?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:09 pmThe Faberge egg. The weapon of choice for the Bolsheviks. Sorry, just trying to get into the act.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:10 pmdbadass are you 18 years or older and have no prior mental or criminal history?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:10 pmdbadass Says:
Okay so should I be allowed my rocket launcher or not?
I’m afraid Dr. Matt packed up his weapons and went home; you’re not getting an answer, at least not from him.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:11 pmyes
March 10th, 2009 at 7:11 pmdbadass, as long as it doesn’t work, you are allowed to own a rocket launcher.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:11 pmdbadass, convert it to firing potatoes and no one will say you nay.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:12 pmWhy should I have to convert it. My buddy with the assault rifle doesn’t have to shoot gummibears
March 10th, 2009 at 7:13 pmTake for example the SKS Rifle. It was a standard issue military weapon used by the Chinese and other Cold War Adversaries.
Many Hunters in my area like the SKS for their Younger, first time Hunters…because it is light weight and accurate.
It could be classified as an assault rifle, even though it is semi-automatic, because of it’s history as a Military Weapon.
This is the Nuance that Obama needs to recognize, to avoid needlessly pi$$ing off his supporters.
Not Everyone Hunts Deer, but take my word for it…around here it is Very Important.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:13 pmYou are good then. I’m not sure if you can get a conceal carry permit though.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:13 pmdbadass, if its on full automatic, he better.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:14 pm101. the Lone Voice of Reason Says: Obesity kills more people than guns. There should be a ban on donuts.
Don’t try to ban my semi-automatic apple fritter with the detachable bearclaw clip and eclair bandolier…
March 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pmdbadass, as long as it doesn’t work, you are allowed to own a rocket launcher
March 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm— Fair enough so long as all those gun collectors agree that their weapon of choice need not work. After all it is really just about the joy of collection and appreciation right?
dbadass, if its on full automatic, he better.
—
March 10th, 2009 at 7:16 pmThat sounds like a strong case for him not needing it
Hoodathunk Says:
Zooey, I’d prefer a Cadbury egg.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Even better. :-)
March 10th, 2009 at 7:17 pmI’m still trying to imagine a fully automatic assault weapon spewing gummibears. Can we sell it to the military?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:18 pmSmart bombs that spread eclairs and donuts over a 100 yard radius.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pmSo what is it that gives the U.S. this particularly high firearm death rate? If there’s other countries with lower regulation AND lower death (homicide/suicide) rates, why so high in the U.S.? Is this something that needs to be culture specific? Would stricter licensing/insurance/etc/ like the car model really bring this down?
so many questions!
March 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pmZooey Says:
Hoodathunk Says:
Zooey, I’d prefer a Cadbury egg.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Even better. :-)
Have you ever actually eaten one of those? Urg. Now I really feel sick again.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pmps- please don’t mention Cadbury Eggs when I’m still trapped at work away from any sugar fix…
March 10th, 2009 at 7:21 pmThat will definitely win hearts and minds.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:21 pmWould stricter licensing/insurance/etc/ like the car model really bring this down?
It’s a start, don’t you think?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:22 pmAnd what countries have fewer regulations and lower death rates?
103. belac Says: We also license car drivers and require them to pass certain tests from time to time. As well as impose age limits on drivers. We also require car owners to be insured. Shouldn’t gun ownership and use be just as regulated, if not more so?
Remember Billy Jack?
Billy Jack: CHANGE those people? You worked with [Martin Luther] King, didn’t you?
Jean: Yes!
Billy Jack: Where is he?
Jean: Dead.
Billy Jack: And where’s Bob and Jack Kennedy?
Jean: Dead.
Billy Jack: Not “dead”, their brains blown out! Because YOUR people wouldn’t even put the same controls on their guns as they do on their dogs, their bicycles, their cats, and their automobiles.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:23 pmgummitch Says:
Have you ever actually eaten one of those? Urg. Now I really feel sick again.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Not in years, but I thought it would bruise less.
Sorry, gummitch. :|
March 10th, 2009 at 7:23 pmdbadass: Full auto weapons are already illegal to own in working order, unless you have a special permit. Semi auto weapons are legal and no special permit is needed. A civilian M14 which is semi auto is legal, but under this so called assault weapon ban, if the M14 had a black plastic stock instead of a wood stock it would be banned. Tell me what sense that makes?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:25 pm128:
March 10th, 2009 at 7:26 pmDo you remember Billy Paul from back in the day when I still watched SNL?
Tell me what sense that makes?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:27 pm–
Plastic is a waste of nonrenewable resources? I don’t know. All I ever asked is what is reasonable and what is not and how should we decide.
Either way I am still confused as to why my switchblade is contraband
March 10th, 2009 at 7:28 pmSwitzerland requires men over the age of 20 to own an assault rifle! But their death rates by firearm homicide are far lower than ours.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:31 pmSteele is flailing about trying to win over some of Limpwads base.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:33 pm133.dbadass Says: Either way I am still confused as to why my switchblade is contraband
…and why is hemp illegal, even though we would save thousands of acres of forests and pristine woodland?
Yeah, lobbyists….(true!)
March 10th, 2009 at 7:34 pmHi Nevar.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:36 pmMigration is well underway. I hope you are well safe and seeing lots of wonderful stuff. Before you know it it will be amphibian season around here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
March 10th, 2009 at 7:36 pmSwitzerland requires men over the age of 20 to own an assault rifle! But their death rates by firearm homicide are far lower than ours.
Switzerland also has a ‘well-regulated militia’ and trains all those young men in the safe use of those weapons… and to purchase a weapon (outside of breech and muzzle loaders or recognized historical weapons) other than your Army issued weapon requires a special, and difficult to obtain permit.
I’d agree to that.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:37 pmDon’t know if this has been posted, but there’s a Red Dawn in Texas, it seems (from Raw Story):
The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
Armadillos!
No… Jackrabbits!
Damn…
“Gila Monsters!”
Yeah, that’s the ticket…
March 10th, 2009 at 7:37 pm134.Realness Says: Switzerland requires men over the age of 20 to own an assault rifle! But their death rates by firearm homicide are far lower than ours.
And now here, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story…
Changes the impression, eh?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:38 pmclaims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place
March 10th, 2009 at 7:41 pm—
So it is a part of Mexico afterall….
140. barfly Says:The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
The strongest case yet for gun control.
Yes, these are the kinds of people I want armed…a teevee has-been martial artist with delusions of Jefferson Davis…
March 10th, 2009 at 7:42 pmdbadass Says:
claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place
—
So it is a part of Mexico afterall….
March 10th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I say we just cut Texas loose.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:46 pmYes, these are the kinds of people I want armed…a teevee has-been martial artist with delusions of Jefferson Davis…
Ties in with the story I posted yesterday, about the growing number of Bushvilles – or tent cities of unemployed and displaced workers. They are a ripe field for planting insurrection.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:47 pmZooey Says:
I say we just cut Texas loose.
Works for me.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:49 pmThe call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution.
Isn’t this sedition?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:52 pm“Gila Monsters!”
Sorry, we’ve already laid claim to these delightful and shy creatures here in the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts…
Might I suggest ChuckNuts adopt the feral pigs as their mascot.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:52 pmhmmmm, then maybe there aren’t any countries with less regulation=less firearm deathrate? wouldn’t that be the obvious and logical corelate for people to see that we need more regulation, because it would directly reduce that deathrate, increasing all our safety?
why is it that the NRA other such groups can have such contrary data?
I hope this isn’t annoying…I’m more thinking about this out loud than anything else, so thanks for the help and links :)
March 10th, 2009 at 7:53 pmHey dbadass… the snow geese gave all left the Rio Grande, and the flycatchers have returned to their nest in the windsock at the heli-base.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:57 pmI found a golden eagle nest a couple of weeks ago. I think it is a “spare” for the local pair….
149. Realness Says: hmmmm, then maybe there aren’t any countries with less regulation=less firearm deathrate? wouldn’t that be the obvious and logical corelate for people to see that we need more regulation, because it would directly reduce that deathrate, increasing all our safety?
It’s the same for health care, et. al. The businesses and entities that profit the most from the current, broken system always have ‘alternative’ facts to justify keeping their money flowing. Remember bush’s ’set of facts’ about Iraq?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:57 pm“why is it that the NRA other such groups can have such contrary data?”
The NRA has become the promotional and marketing wing of the arms manufacturers.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:59 pm147. barfly Says: The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution.
Isn’t this sedition?
Either that or the plot to the direct-to-video “Walker, Texas Ranger” movie…
(Chuck ain’t been the same toward foreigners ever since he got his @ss beat by Bruce…)
March 10th, 2009 at 8:00 pmI would also ask then- how do you address the problem of the CULTURAL institutions of guns in the U.S.- 2nd Amendment, freedom, etc. Why is the U.S. in particular so hung up on this right to bear arms? The UK had a similar kind of ‘right to bear’ in its legal traditions, but faded it out with tighter regulations.
a tradition of pending or possible opposition to the government? rugged individualism?
alright- i’ll check it when i get home.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:03 pmI just hope the state of Texas gives Chuck some sort of honorarium, for issuing a nationwide call for all secessionist nutbags in the country to flock to their state.
Heh.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:06 pmMaybe all those idiot free staters will get out of here and go over there….
March 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pmJust picture: a horde of armed, drunk unemployed rednecks, wandering the cities of Texas. I hope George had his house bullet proofed. It would be a shame, if he got tapped by a stray target-practice round.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:13 pmAre we still ignoring the part that said, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State …”?
March 10th, 2009 at 8:13 pm155. barfly Says: I just hope the state of Texas gives Chuck some sort of honorarium, for issuing a nationwide call for all secessionist nutbags in the country to flock to their state.
Actually, since we are a nation at war, this should absolutely be considered terrorism. Chuck, by rights should be visited by the FBI and forced to issue a contrite apology to Obama and the nation.
Norris seems to be a popular name for sneaky pussies; one in Texas and one in Harry Potter….
(my apologies to HP fans…)
March 10th, 2009 at 8:14 pmIf that’s the case, we can probably totally ignore the fact that the Pennsylvania delegation had proposed an amendment that specifically guaranteed an individual right to bear arms but it was shot down.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:16 pmSedition in time of war absolutely qualifies as treason.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:16 pmAre we still ignoring the part that said, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State …”?
We seem to be… I wonder why we don’t adopt the Swiss model? Seems that would give those who like automatic weapons the chance to fire some off while supervised and take care of our declining National Guard rolls at the same time…
March 10th, 2009 at 8:17 pmIf that’s the case, we can probably totally ignore the fact that the Pennsylvania delegation had proposed an amendment that specifically guaranteed an individual right to bear arms but it was shot down.
As had Samuel Adams, as had the New Hampshire delegation…
3 times it was defeated… what were people saying about ‘original intent’ of the Founders again?
March 10th, 2009 at 8:20 pmI beat you back here, RHF ;)
March 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pm“…but it was shot down.”
See? All anyone needs to do is aim…
March 10th, 2009 at 8:23 pmI believe Lou “Pancakes” Dobbs was fulminating over this.
CNN has become one giant turd circling the bowl.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:25 pmTaking bets: ten to one, Norris is heavily invested in Remington, S&W, Ithaca, Winchester…
March 10th, 2009 at 8:25 pmYou can laugh at Norris if you want but my cousin, for one, has vowed to join the insurrection if the so-called right to bear is restricted. He claims there are thousands like him …
March 10th, 2009 at 8:32 pmEveryone has a right to work and support their families in the way they are accustomed to.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:34 pmMexican drug dealers have the same self-defense rights as anybody carrying a weapon, a machete or machine gun!
How else can they discipline people and keep the drug markets working? American addicts have a right to try to stop their pain and they provide the powder that heals all.
Maybe they should declare the area 10 miles south of the border to be an “Open Fire Zone” and interdict them all.
American gun factories will be working overtime if we allow some leeway on firing zones.
Just Kidding!
You can laugh at Norris if you want but my cousin, for one, has vowed to join the insurrection if the so-called right to bear is restricted.
A quick ticket to prison, or the gas chamber.
It is treason, after all.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:36 pmAh, it takes me back to the famous Conan “Walker Lever!”
heh…
March 10th, 2009 at 8:37 pm170. lzcrmc Says: He claims there are thousands like him …
That’s depressing. On the bright side, Hee Haw DVD sales are way up…
March 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pmAnyone who can’t reconcile the Constitution with a secular society is an idiot.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:42 pmTexas became a member of the United States by treaty:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp
March 10th, 2009 at 8:45 pmwiley Says:
Texas became a member of the United States by treaty:
Wasn’t that nullified by the Texas Ordinance of Secession?
March 10th, 2009 at 8:53 pmWow. I’m from Texas and I never heard of that. OOPSIE.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:06 pmThis is classic fear-mongering. Good to see some things never change with the GOP.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 10th, 2009 at 9:07 pmbelac at #103,
People should really study that list. If the US’s firearm-related death rate is thirty times Britain’s, that should tell a thinking person that our gun laws should be more like Britain’s. Problem is, Americans always think they are so dang superior to every other country in the world.
Americans buy guns to protect their homes against burglars or Chinese invaders, but the weapon winds up being used in domestic violence, suicides, or accidental shootings. This is not my opinion, but sociological studies for many decades.
The head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, never touched a gun the first 24 years of his life and always told me how much he hated “gun nuts”. (But if he can make a million dollars a year lobbying for guns—what the hell!)
March 10th, 2009 at 9:23 pmDisclaimer: I have participated in shooting sports my whole life. Dad bought me my first .22 when I was seven. I have owned a myriad of weapons including high capacity semi-auto handguns. I currently own one bolt-action rifle, one pump-action 12 gauge shotgun, and a beautiful (and quite valuable) Beretta Over-under 20 gauge shotgun. I do not currently own any handguns.
Here’s my take on assault weapons which I prefer to call “high-capacity”.
High-capacity weapons, those with removable clips that contain 10 or more rounds, are designed to kill people. That’s their only purpose. The reason such big clips were invented was to limit reloading in combat and to provide “volume of fire”. Volume fire, or “cover fire”, is the practice of firing lots of bullets at hostile persons to prevent them shooting back. There is no legitimate civilian use for weapons designed for this purpose.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:25 pmI may be wrong but I believe that pete is a knowledgable and reasoned person who should always be welcomed to any discussion of firearms and rights.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:30 pmPuhleeez…NO ONE repeat NO ONE is talking about removing the 2nd Amendment.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:32 pmR-E-G-U-L-A-T-E!!
Cmon people, this IS the 21st Century.
dbadass, sounds like it.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:33 pmBTW. There’s nothing wrong with plastic stocks. Folding/collapsible stocks, which facilitate concealing long-guns, are the issue.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:33 pmThanx db. I offer what I can. (blushing)
March 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pmPete,
March 10th, 2009 at 9:37 pmAs you almost always do. You bring valid statements to discussions. Thank you! (BTW..Decent personal arsenal ;-)
Mind you pete is welcome at my table for any discussion of natural history, outdoorsmanship, and as far as I can tell any other topic which might be on that table.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:43 pmAw c’mon, you guys are gonna feed my superiority complex, LOL.
I’m afraid I can’t take personal credit. My parents were educated and, from a very early age, taught me to learn about a given subject before offering an opinion. (Though Dad did occasionally claim he made a mistake in teaching me the word “why”.) That same year I received a .22 for my birthday, I received my own set of Worldbook encyclopedias for Christmas. The rest, as they say, is history.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:57 pmDB,
March 10th, 2009 at 9:57 pmYour gushing now.
Pete is already blushing.
Good is Pete.
Enough of this where the hell is Archie B? I have business with Archie.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:59 pmSure I’ll bet you end up changing your name… Some shit can be defended against by a small dick compensator
March 10th, 2009 at 10:07 pmoops that bett read can’t
March 10th, 2009 at 10:07 pmProblems with squirrels at your feeder, Archie?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:07 pmThe thing about educated and strict parents. I had a library wall in my room covering a wide variety of subjects since age 5. They incouraged learning, the same way Pete’s did. Well, maybe a Little differently see, I was a pertinant child as it were, so I spent alot of time on restriction in my room doing nothing but what else?
The point though is what I (and the Petes, DBs, Zooey’s, Waynes n Janes, Hanshiros, TRoSs,RHFs and other regular posters here in no particular order) have been able to Draw from these personal enrichement exercises.
Good on all ya!
Oh and the TP production team!
March 10th, 2009 at 10:09 pmHow tight a group can you keep with 10 rounds at 30 yards, Archie?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pmArchiholicbald Beonker,
March 10th, 2009 at 10:11 pmHoney, sweety, where you been sugarbuns?
Come give us some LOVIN
Disclaimer: I fully recognize that the Archibald Schtick is a..
March 10th, 2009 at 10:13 pmI think you meant “impertinent” there RC. And I resemble that remark.
It came to a head in 8th grade when I walked out of geography class and refused to waste any more time listening to an “ignorant savage who’s more interested in talking about gopher trapping than geography”.
The various adults in my life corrected me about the rights of an 8th grader but, my classmates didn’t ever forget me calling out a teacher. I ran into one of those classmates some 25 years after the event and had a great laugh.
BTW. Said “ignorant savage” was released from teaching at the end of the year and went into auto mechanics. I like to think I helped make the system work.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:24 pmWhy doesn’t Archie want to discuss Archie’s thoughts of asses and coks? Let’s go Archie. Let’s do this thing….
March 10th, 2009 at 10:24 pmHardly an answer, Archie.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:24 pmA bit of Bravado from Peachycheeks!
March 10th, 2009 at 10:25 pmOoh Archie baby, your gettn me HOT!
Give us some LOVIN!
March 10th, 2009 at 10:26 pmYour AK n my SR25
150 Yards
1 shot
Thats some Lovin baby!
March 10th, 2009 at 10:29 pmgimme some sugar
Oh c’mon Archie, at thirty yards with a handgun, any handgun, either you can cut a group or you can’t. Don’t be stupid.
Geez, I wonder what your response would have been if I’d said 40 yards.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:30 pmDamn. We had a nice discussion going for almost two-hundred posts and Ol’ dbadass had to break out the troll-call.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:31 pmSo Archie, I always wonder do you just randomly pull a new name from a premade list? The thing with that is it would imply that even you know you will end up losing. Otherwise why have the premade list?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:32 pm“…How many drams?”
He’s in his cups…
March 10th, 2009 at 10:35 pmRHF,
March 10th, 2009 at 10:35 pmYou keep your mittens off!
Archibald is mmmmmy Peachcheeks.
Ain’t ya Archie baby?
Gimme some LOVIN
Damn. We had a nice discussion going for almost two-hundred posts and Ol’ dbadass had to break out the troll-call.
—
And I apologize for that. Still the problem is that old Archie here open a can of worms that Archie should not have.
The easiest solution is for Archie to do the right thing and just take responsibility for a slip in manners. If Archie can’t do that I have also suggested claiming a random name jacking or just changing name.
Manners Matter Archie
Put your guns down and take some responsibilty like a real man….
March 10th, 2009 at 10:36 pmWell, lets see. Back when I had a Ruger Redhawk, I could hold a ten inch group at 200 yards. I could manage 5 inches at 150 yards with my old muzzle-loader and about the same with a 12 gauge slug. Now, my Weatherby 7mm mag is a whole different story. I can shoot that thing all day, at 300 yards, and make a ragged hole about 1.5 inches in diameter while it’s no great trick to hit a head-sized target at 500 yards.
BTW. I can hear a red-neck belch at 400 yards.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm10 shot, killed in south Ala. towns; shooter dead
March 10th, 2009 at 10:38 pmFrom Associated Press
March 10, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
SAMSON, Alabama – A gunman went on a shooting spree in two neighboring south Alabama towns Tuesday, killing nine people before he shot himself at a metals plant, authorities said.
DB,
As I understand your current course of study, wouldn’t you consider your request to this Asshat being an exercise in futility?
jus sayin ;’)
March 10th, 2009 at 10:39 pmThat’s awesome with the Redhawk, pete.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pmI’m down to 8 inches with a .38 Colt Trooper at 40 yards.
Says the Asshat with no manners.
Your pathetic
March 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pmThat’s O.K. db.
Though, speaking only for myself, this “new” troll (sockpuppet) isn’t worthy of much consideration. I still don’t like wasting my time on ignorant savages.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pmArchie B:
March 10th, 2009 at 10:43 pmYou do realize that ignoring this will not make it go away? All you have to do is say that people got under your skin and you lost your composure and flamed. I think that would earn you some respect and I will forget it. Otherwise it goes where you go. Now what I mean “whatever your new name is”?
Have you tried handloads and/or a scope, Nevar? A well-tuned Trooper is capable of “one-hole” accuracy but, I haven’t found factory ammo that’s capable of real accuracy in a handgun. And I loooooove scopes.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:47 pmShut up Archie.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:47 pmArchie B Says:
——————————————————————————–
dbadass Says:
Hi Archie B:
Do you have any cut/pastes as to how Ms? Coulter feels about the concept of the “Unitary Executive”?
——
No,but, I have a feeling you like cok in your ass.
—
Ding Ding! See Archie B this is the part where you start thinking of your new name….
March 9th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
—————–
See what I mean Archie?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:48 pmAn update to Keith’s news at 119. One of the officers in Samson said he saw some of the shells and said they were from an M-16 or functionally similar gun.
Bad timing to shoot your mouth off about assault weapons, Mr. Steele.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:48 pmANYONE that says gun owners should be able to “self” regulate.
In my best Mencia voice
RetARDed!
NDTRP
March 10th, 2009 at 10:49 pmhttp://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.html
ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, 12/6/01: In this manual, Al Qaeda terrorists are now told how to use America’s freedom as a weapon against us.
DEBORAH AMOS: But what Ashcroft did not point out: these manuals show Osama bin Laden’s foot soldiers how easy it is to buy assault weapons in American gun stores and gun shows.
Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations have exploited numerous loopholes in American gun laws — loopholes that exist because of consistent lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association to stop any restrictions on gun purchases. Since September 11th, critics say, the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has chosen to side with the NRA at the expense of the war on terrorism.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:50 pmOh, I’m sorry Archibald.
You say something important?
did not think so.
Gimme some lovin PEACHYCHEEKS
March 10th, 2009 at 10:50 pmThis is a hand me down, pete, I’m just starting out.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:51 pmKeith,
March 10th, 2009 at 10:53 pmthanks for the link. When will people GET it?
Archie’s problem is that he can’t hold steady until he’s had a drink or three, and then he can’t see so good…
March 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pmhttp://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/031402.php
An Al-Qaeda manual, discovered at a training facility near Kabul, counsels Al-Qaeda operatives in the U.S. to “obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably an AK-47.”
I’m not only talking about Al-Qaeda. I’m talking about the Irish Republican Army obtaining scores of guns from a corrupt Florida gun dealer. I’m talking about the racially motivated terror of white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, whose 1999 shooting rampage against blacks, Jews and Asians in Illinois and Indiana killed two and wounded nine others. I’m talking about Pakistani terrorist Mir Aimal Kasi’s 1993 assault weapon attack on the CIA.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pmYou know you own them when they are too scared to respond while claiming to be hard-on gun dudes
Archie B is a Pussy and Archie won’t challenge me saying so…
March 10th, 2009 at 10:57 pmRHF,
Thanks, but its Bigger than that!
LOL
See, you and I arent afraid of Gettn eachs others back.
winkwink
Ohh Archibald, where for art thou?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pmhttp://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/tags/gunsmuggling
A federal judge on Friday sentenced a former official of the Venezuelan Air Force (FAV) to 24 months in prison after he plead guilty to conspiracy to export more than 650 MAK90 assault rifles and ammunition from Florida to guerrilla groups in Colombia.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:00 pmIts the 24 percent that make me keep weapons ;-(
March 10th, 2009 at 11:01 pmStupid troll. .44 mag, 9 1/2 inch barrel, handloads with 200 grain Sierra hollow-points, 2.5X Weaver scope, and a pillow on the shooting bench. It’s been several years so I can’t remember which powder gave the best results. Hercules and Blue-Dot were both pretty good though I can’t recall which I used for target and which for hunting. One of them gave me about 350 fps over the other, through the chronograph, but accuracy suffered a bit.
Six shots in ten inches, with a good target round, isn’t a big deal. Heck, a friend of mine who has better eyes than I, and an identical gun, could out shoot me with open sights out to a hundred yards. When he used my gun he put me to shame at any range.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pmHey Archie hows that cok from my ass feeling crammed down your throat?
What can you not speak? Let’s go big guy. I have limited patience…
March 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pmSorry, stupid troll. I don’t let ignorant savages rule my life and I had to eat dinner and feed the fish.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:05 pmIf they weren’t here this wouldn’t be happening
They the Guns Sugarplum? Or maybe you mean the Manuals Peachycheeks?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:05 pmWhat exactly Asshat?
Archie B Says:
If they weren’t here this wouldn’t be happening. Keep coddling them, ok?
Can you explain?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:08 pmYou see? What the stupid trolls can’t seem to understand is that most shooting deaths are attributable to legally purchased firearms. If people are being killed with legally purchased firearms, should we not explore changing the laws?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:08 pmI hope I don’t get my head blown off here (said with a smile), but what’s the big deal? I don’t mind registering my weapons, because I do not (now) fear my government. If I’m wrong, and they come to take away my guns, well I reckon that’s when the constitution anticipated I should use them. We don’t need a ban on a narrow class of weapons, we need personal responsibility for the weapons we choose to own. Regulated, and educated, works for me. I’ll skip the stories of my shooting prowess, I once came close to throwing a muzzle-loaded .45 at a groundhog.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:09 pmPete,
March 10th, 2009 at 11:10 pmHope dinner was good. We have been dealing with a ahem “plumbing” problem as you see. Glad you can help out.
Archie B Says:
keith, what nationality was the killer in Alabama?
A better question would be how he got the weapon. How does his nationality matter? If he was from Outer Mongolia, you response would be what?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:13 pmArchie how many guns must you have to convince yourself that you are not a fool and a complete pussy. Will you even let me talk about your Mama and sister ans still act like you don’t hear it? Damn are you weak…
March 10th, 2009 at 11:14 pmThanx, RC. Dinner was just reheated Swedish meatballs but, as an old friend used to say, “it’ll make a turd”.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:15 pmArchie has really turned this thread into his own personal pissing contest.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:18 pmIf twenty percent of people in Illinois were either dead or refugees, then it would be like Iraq.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:18 pmI am almost embarrassed for Archie. I have never ever encounter such a complete and total pussy.
Actually I probably should be more embarassed for myself. Afterall I am the one that owns this stupid piece of ill mannered shit.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:21 pmNow what the hell am I gonna do with it?
Actually, stupid troll, the midrange trajectory at 200 yards is @ 16 inches with a medium-hot load. The trick is a balance between gun, bullet, and powder with VERY careful measuring and bullet seating. A gun is only as good as it’s ammo and operator.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:23 pmdbadass Says:
Actually I probably should be more embarassed for myself. Afterall I am the one that owns this stupid piece of ill mannered shit.
Don’t worry. I hear there’s a plan to buy toxic assets.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:25 pmJust for giggles, other than myself who else thinks that Archie is a weak piece of shit too scared to even defend himself and the honor of his family? Let’s make a list shall we?
1) dbadass
March 10th, 2009 at 11:26 pmArchie B Says:
Crime in Chicago has been off the charts for many yrs.
If you want to talk crime rates, follow belac’s link at #103. You will see the US’s is far worse than the rest of the world. This is the easy place to buy large numbers of high-powered weapons. It is no good DC or Chicago having strict gun laws, because noone is stopped entering DC or Chicago from places where it is easy to obtain them.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:29 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
pete, that explains why Archie is such a “quick” fire with such “bad” aim! ;)
I hate to imagine his chagrin if he ever realizes he’s been shooting blanks. Though it saves on expenses if one only needs to but one target.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:29 pm1) dbadass
March 10th, 2009 at 11:30 pm2) OutstandingInMyField
dbadass, put me down.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:33 pmSo Archie, once we have the count data shall we apply a little Chi Square? I suspect a statistically signicant result. What do you think?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:33 pmOkay sao me, outstanding, keith. As a percentage of those present I am starting to think the pussy hypothesis is likely to be supported by the dataset…
March 10th, 2009 at 11:35 pmThere is a very direct relationship between poverty, lack of opportunity and crime. Also the US’s drug laws.
Very significant drop in crime under Clinton. One year under Reagan in Los Angeles, there were 1,100 homicides in one year (one city). In 1975 Britain, there might have been 200 homicides out of 60 million people.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:37 pmYou all the best part? I could say the rudest most f ucked up shit about Archie B, his sister, parents, loved ones, pets or whatever and Archie would let me. Talk about being a subordinate member of a primate social group. Shit Archie might as well not even exist. That gene pool will clearly not be getting moved along…
March 10th, 2009 at 11:38 pmI forgot the word “known” as the third word in that last one. Still if you want to know what I did to his mama and sister just ask. It is okay he won’t stand up for them….
March 10th, 2009 at 11:39 pmand I added an “n” to “know”. Still those skanks made that Tennessee skank of the wanna be Latin King seem like something.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:41 pm4)RandomChaos
DB
March 10th, 2009 at 11:41 pmJon Stewart? That was a change of subject. The subject was Steele and assault weapons.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:41 pmWell since I am his daddy…
March 10th, 2009 at 11:45 pmdbadass Says:
You all the best part? I could say the rudest most f ucked up shit about Archie B, etc.
He reminds me of those old spinsters/bootleggers from the Waltons. When a subject becomes the slightest bit uncomfortable, he starts blabbering about some guy he had a crush on during the Great War.
When will they learn that introducing an irrelevant point is an automatic fail?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:46 pm1) dbadass
2) OutstandingInMyField
3) Keith
4) RandomChaos
We can all do his ma and sisters. We can even make him watch. He won’t protect them even with all them there guns….
March 10th, 2009 at 11:47 pmHmmmmm. Hunt with an accurate SS/MS rifle, or use an inacurate spray n pray weapon.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:51 pmWhat would a REAL hunter use?
Lets ask Elmer Fudd shall we.
So, stupid troll, now that we got all that irrelevancy out of the way…
Can you name a legitimate civilian application for a military weapon capable of a sustained rate of fire measured in hundreds of rounds per minute?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:52 pmSo Archie how does that cok from my ass taste now that it is crammed down your throat. I think you are likely to think twice before you flame next. The thing is that I am gonna let you go for now but the thing is everyone that comes here knows that I own you and everytime you show up I will f uck with you. You need to accept that manners matter and that failure to display them has consequences.
I apologize to the rest of you for having to tie up so much space schooloing this clown.
best-
March 10th, 2009 at 11:55 pmpete Says:
He reminds me of those old spinsters/bootleggers from the Waltons. When a subject becomes the slightest bit uncomfortable, he starts blabbering about some guy he had a crush on during the Great War.
When will they learn that introducing an irrelevant point is an automatic fail?
An irrelevant point is an automatic fail if one is discussing something of substance. It is part of the southern culture to deflect an uncomfortable conversation to meaningless blather. It’s not ignorance, but etiquette.
Not dissing you pete, just explaining why some of us southern liberals don’t come right out and call a fool, like Archie, a fool.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:57 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says
March 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
You sound like a reich-winger with your completely irrelevant and obtuse tangents. No one is trying to obtain rocket launchers and atom bombs. Attempt to stay on topic and keep your hysteria to a minimum.
__________________________________________________________
I’m sorry it took so long for me to reply to you, but I was out tonight.
I suspect you completely missed my point. Which means I didn’t express myself very well. Let me try again.
Whenever any sensible group of people attempt to restrict weapons that have no purpose but to kill multiple people quickly and efficiently, the gun rights people squawk about their constitutional right to bear arms, pointing to the second amendment.
I maintain that there is a limit to the right to bear arms, and I would be willing to bet that everyone — even hardcore NRA lifetime members — agrees. If there was no limit, anybody would have the right to own any kind of weapon they could afford. ANY weapon.
No, I’m not suggesting that anybody is out advocating we actually permit this. And I’m not setting up a straw man. My point is that EVERYBODY (with the possible exception of one or two deranged lunatics) has a line as to what should be permitted. Where we differ is where we want that line drawn.
So — if we all agree that we favor some limits on bearing arms, it’s madness to lean on the second amendment for one’s argument. Attacking where somebody else draws the line by using the second amendment is basically claiming there shouldn’t be a line. And that’s hypocrisy.
I’m not a right-winger (you should know me better than that!). I was on topic and relevant — my point had to do with the definition of gun control. I certainly wasn’t hysterical. And I wasn’t suggesting that anybody was seriously attempting to legalize atom bombs for private citizens. I was using an extreme example to make a point that everybody has a limit.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:05 amrepublicans hate facts Says
OutstandingInMyField, some call that DYSFUNCTIONAL not MANNERLY, just so you know! ;)
Well it’s always been a bit of a fine line…
March 11th, 2009 at 12:07 amBeing an animal lover, I no longer hunt (I have killed, and know how to do it). I do enjoy target range and trap shooting still. I won’t kill an animal, but if I wanted or had too. I would. If these AssHats AB and CN think I would lay down for thier treasonous asses. Well, bring it beotches.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:08 amI never made that claim. Next?
–
March 11th, 2009 at 12:10 amWhy are you such a pussy that would let me walk all over you and do the thinks I have to the most vulnerable of your kinfolk. Are you not man enough to defend them as well as yourself? Is the cok you misspelled preventing you from speaking? Do you not think people will remember how much you have allowed youself to be subjugated by me?
Archie B Says:
There is no legitimate civilian use for weapons designed for this purpose.
———–
Wanna bet?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Perhaps I mistook your meaning but, I think you made the claim that high-capacity military weapons have a legitimate civilian use at 10:05. Next!
March 11th, 2009 at 12:13 amGoogled
Archie Bunker Troll
Hmmmmmmmm?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:17 amArchie B Says:
I’m off…
March 10th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
One true thing.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:23 amOutstandingInMyField Says:
An irrelevant point is an automatic fail if one is discussing something of substance. It is part of the southern culture to deflect an uncomfortable conversation to meaningless blather. It’s not ignorance, but etiquette.
Not dissing you pete, just explaining why some of us southern liberals don’t come right out and call a fool, like Archie, a fool.
I grok etiquette. I have been accused of being insufferably polite myself, even when passing on a veiled insult. One of my favorite pastimes is calling a fool a fool without said fool being aware of it. Kinda like Grandma Walton. She didn’t need to call the Baldwin sisters “evil” to let the rest of the world know her opinion on the subject. I have always admired the ability of fine ladies, or gentleman, to eviscerate an opponent without any overt attack.
But, obviously, our stupid troll doesn’t follow the rules of social etiquette and isn’t bright enough to catch subtle imprecations. He merely moves the goal posts while the ball is in the air. That’s not just intellectually dishonest (bankrupt?), it’s just plain rude.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:25 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
I maintain that there is a limit to the right to bear arms, and I would be willing to bet that everyone — even hardcore NRA lifetime members — agrees.
Ah, the voice of reason. I Imagine our forefathers planned that we could bear arms in order to protect our homes, and rally to the defense of our community when necessary. This still works when we espouse responsible gun ownership.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:27 amArchie B Says:
High-capacity weapons, those with removable clips that contain 10 or more rounds, are designed to kill people.
by pete
I think you made the claim that high-capacity military weapons have a legitimate civilian use at 10:05. Next!
by pete
—-
Nope. Next! :)
March 11th, 2009 at 12:21 am
So… Are you admitting that high-capacity, military, weapons DON’T have a legitimate civilian use? If that is, indeed, your contention then we could have avoided this whole distasteful exchange.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:32 amKeith Says:
Americans buy guns to protect their homes against burglars or Chinese invaders,
*****
March 11th, 2009 at 12:38 amROFLMAO!!!!
Archie B Says:
High-capacity weapons, those with removable clips that contain 10 or more rounds, are designed to kill people.
Before I’m off to bed, I would like to point out that low capacity weapons, even a crossbow, were designed to kill. We’re animals, let us strive to us our cleverness for a higher purpose.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:42 amuse, should’a gone to bed sooner
March 11th, 2009 at 12:44 amOutstandingInMyField Says:
Ah, the voice of reason. I Imagine our forefathers planned that we could bear arms in order to protect our homes, and rally to the defense of our community when necessary. This still works when we espouse responsible gun ownership.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:27 am
A very salient point. If I may add; when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there was not much of a difference between military and hunting/sporting weapons. Repeating arms had not been invented and the concept of a pistol which could spit out 18 rounds in ten seconds would have been called witchcraft.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:45 amPete,
March 11th, 2009 at 12:46 amI appears ArchieB is saying he Lied.
go figure.
It It damn it.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:48 amOutstandingInMyField Says:
Archie B Says:
High-capacity weapons, those with removable clips that contain 10 or more rounds, are designed to kill people.
Actually, I was the one who introduced that concept, and I stand by it. And, as a hunter who strives for “one shot” kills, I stand by the contention that high-capacity weapons have no legitimate civilian use.
All weapons have the capacity to kill. That’s their definition. However, hunting/sporting weapons have diverged from military weapons. A single-shot rifle is designed to kill game, or paper, within the limits of the shooter. They use ammo that is optimized for sure kills of game, or paper.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:53 amHigh-capacity weapons, on the other hand, are specifically designed for combat.
RandomChaos Says:
Pete,
It appears ArchieB is saying he Lied.
go figure.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:46 am
That’s the real tragedy. The “best” our stupid trolls have to offer are lies. What a sad, unsatisfying, existence it must be.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:59 amArchie B Says:
I never typed the word “military” in my post. High capacity weapons have a legitimate use. Not “military high capacity.” There is a difference.
With all due respect…there ain’t a great deal of diference if you’re shot by one…
March 11th, 2009 at 1:06 amWill wonders never cease? We might be approaching a common ground.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement to specifically exclude .22 rimfires and weapons with fixed magazines?
I don’t have a problem with a 20 shot .22 rifle. I don’t have a huge problem with a 16 shot Henry replica (though I can’t think of a good reason it shouldn’t be plugged at 5, or 7, or 10 rounds to meet federal standards.)
What I was referring to, and I thought it was obvious, are high-capacity weapons in “military” or “man-killing” calibers with multiple magazines.
This category would include any weapon with multiple, high capacity, magazines like my old Browning Hi-Power 9mm. It was fun to shoot but, it was not capable of taking game reliably while it was capable of killing people efficiently. If one were so inclined one could use it to take out half a school but, if one depended on it to fill the pot, one would starve to death if it were one’s only weapon. The same could be said of, virtually, all “assault weapons”. These weapons are optimized for fighting people. They are, clearly, military weapons designed for use in battle.
Now, personally, if I had to take action against a hostile military force I would depend on guerrilla tactics. I’m not stupid enough to engage in open battle with a military force. So? A high capacity, military, weapon would not serve my purpose. Such a weapon does, however, serve the purpose of some wacko who snaps and decides to kill a bunch of innocent victims.
Question: Does a law limiting gun owners to a single small clip infringe on the 2nd Amendment?
I don’t think so.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:43 amArchie B Says:
WASHINGTON – The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration’s efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.
Thanks a bunch, obama! Take our guns and set the terrorists free. Perfect!
_______________
Uh… Archie??? BotchCo set that one free… not Obama…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainee_taliban
WASHINGTON – The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration’s efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.
Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007.
______________
“… RELEASED… in DECEMBER 2007…”
Geez, Archie… seeing how much you can hurt yourself w/ “simple facts”… I’d hate to see what you’d do to yourself w/ a real weapon…
March 11th, 2009 at 1:55 amThe current overall philosophy of the GOP is little more than political contrarianism. If Obama says “black”, they say “white” (no pun intended).
Another reason why the Republican Party is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:04 amArchie B Says:
Bush isn’t the one who wants to set all of them free, that would be you and your boys. See the difference, tool?
_________
Gee, tool… that’s such a clever retort.
So, tool, is this always how you handle it when you make such a complete fool of yourself?
“Closing Gitmo” isn’t the same as “setting them free”, tool.
Do you always resort to pointless hyperbole when trapped w/ your own words, tool?
You’re not very good at this, are you?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:26 amI have said it before and I’ll say it again, “RHF is an ass who doesn’t speak for me” (no offense RHF, I can be an ass and it’s more style than substance).
But Archie (please note I didn’t address you as “stupid troll” this time), can you identify a legitimate civilian use for “high capacity” weapons within the definition I provided?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:46 amBTW, RHF. Thanx for the heads-up on the dirty bomb story.
Can you imagine the hoo-hah if the “dirty bomber” had been a “furriner”, Muslim, Hispanic, “brown”, “librul” or poor? If the dude lived in an apartment building? This story would have been given 36 hours a day in the MSM.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:53 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
pete Says:
I have said it before and I’ll say it again, “RHF is an ass who doesn’t speak for me” (no offense RHF, I can be an ass and it’s more style than substance).
WHY SHOULD I? You speak VERY WELL for YOURSELF? ;)
Awwwww… Now I’m blushing again.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:55 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
YEAH but because he was a RICH WHITE REPUBLICAN they don’t say BOOH! THE CORPORATE MEDIA is a COMPLETE TOOL of JABBA the JUNKIE!
You’re preaching to the choir, as they say.
On a related note, have you read “The Authoritarians”? It’s one of the most informative, and scary, things I’ve ever read. Right up there with “Bush on the Couch”. Check the link when you have a few hours.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
March 11th, 2009 at 3:03 amNo! Stupid troll. I don’t care who shoots up a church or tries to assemble a WMD, regardless of capability or political affiliation. Terrorism is terrorism!
The funny thing is, I can’t recall a single instance of “librul terrorism”, in our country, since the 70’s. However, there are many instances of “Reichwing terrorism” in that time.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:20 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
ARCHIE if you’re JUST GOING TO POST NONSENSE and not COMPLETE SENTENCES I say you NEED TO UP YOUR DOSAGE! ;)
I must, respectfully, disagree. Speaking as one who has consumed a bit more than the optimum quantity of beer; it’s possible that the stupid troll should DECREASE his dosage.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:25 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
pete, don’t forget that most of the “librul terrorism” in the 70s was really just “vandalism”. CONS prefer to kill *people*.
I know that. You know that. Most rational people know that.
However, I’m trying to make the point that “libruls” rarely employ violent measures in this country, at the present time, while Reichwingers continue to employ violent measures.
NOTE: This does not include psychopaths who operate outside of their political affiliation. Some folks is just plain crazy and fall outside the scope of this discussion.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:33 amArchie B Says:
If he was a code pinko you would be silent. Nuff said.
No!
Can you identify a “code pinko” who’s assembling an arsenal? Can you identify a “code pinko”? The next time a “code pinko” assembles an arsenal, with or without WMD, we can talk. I will, probably, come out against said “code pinko”.
I happen to belong to the group who thinks that negotiation is preferable to insurrection.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:43 amWow, this thread turned into quite the Bunker-buster.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:44 amDr Matt asks:
Its advantages over non-assault models, etc. The ‘assault’ feature that makes it a preferable choice.
Jack responds…
Here ya go… everything you wanted to know wrapped up in one tidy package. Now… do you promise me that next week you won’t be asking the very same questions?
http://hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not
March 11th, 2009 at 9:27 amHmmm… the previous post didn’t let me leave a link… let me try again.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:28 amOne more time…
http: // hubpages.com /hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not
March 11th, 2009 at 9:29 amHow can someone stay on a site for hours upon hours getting there ass handed to them non-stop. Wouldn’t it just get old after awhile? He can’t make a coherent point. He posts things that make no sense and are off topic meant to change the debate. Then the moron will quote his own posts and then leave a quip like “nuff said” or “spot on.” Archie is probably the saddest most pathetic troll I have seen on TP. He’s probably having a wet dream over man coulter right now while he strokes his assault rifle.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:59 amCheck this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/11/alabama.shooting.spree/index.html
March 11th, 2009 at 10:39 amI can’t “see” the link, but its there. A guy in Alabama killed 11 people yesterday with…wait for it….
AN M-16 ASSAULT RIFLE!!!!
March 11th, 2009 at 10:41 amI do not understand why everyone takes a simple comment about ‘banning assault weapons’ as a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:28 amAssault weapons are for wars not for hunting so what is the problem? How many of you go hunting with assault weapons?
Maybe he should just banned the ammo for the assault weapons and let the people own the weapons?
dasm Says:
It’s truly disturbing that Republicans continue to get the vast majority of the media’s attention. Even here on TP, if you scan the headlines, it’s all about Republicans and their whining, distorting, and smearing. I wish the media would stop reporting on their many lies, bellowings, & scams and give us some real news– facts, truth, research.
That is what this site is all about dasm. Haven’t you noticed that yet. It’s all about bashing Republicans and discussions on true subjects that are important to the country rarely take place. It all stems from the topics and their slant.
Sometimes they do but not often.
As far as “whining,distorting,and smearing” just look at post # 1 through #471 and count who are “whining, distorting and smearing”.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pmpete, don’t forget that most of the “librul terrorism” in the 70s was really just “vandalism”. CONS prefer to kill *people*.
Friendly people like the Weatherman, Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army. Never hurt anyone. Never killed anyone or robbed any banks. Kindly folks who just wanted to paint graffiti on walls and turn over outhouses..
March 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pmHey, no problem. I’m waiting for these thoughtful people to start calling me names now. I just had to point out this missed fact. People see what they want to see I’m afraid.
Oh I forgot Charles Manson and his peace loving Hippies.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pmpete Says:
No! Stupid troll. I don’t care who shoots up a church or tries to assemble a WMD, regardless of capability or political affiliation. Terrorism is terrorism!
The funny thing is, I can’t recall a single instance of “librul terrorism”, in our country, since the 70’s. However, there are many instances of “Reichwing terrorism” in that time.
You see Pete, the fact that you “can’t recall a single instance of “librul terrorism”, in our country, since the 70’s” is the problem.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pmHe was an INSANE INDIVIDUAL, there are PLENTY OF CONSERVATIVE killers at the same time. Care for me to LIST THEM? Shall we BEGIN with the MAI LAI MASSACRES?
Cop out. Mai Lai was in the heat of a war. Not a domestic terrorism attack at all.
My point was just your point. Pete loves to point out the things that make his point while leaving out facts that don’t.
Now you with Mai Lai. Not the same thing but yes it did happen, I guess.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pmALSO, when you’re talking about GROUPS that were RADICAL in FIGHTING against BLACK OPPRESSION, you saying those were ALL LIBERALS just because they OPPOSED YOU? ROTFL! You’re a WACKO!
Far left wing radicle groups. Yes.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pmjay!
As far as “whining,distorting,and smearing” just look at post # 1 through #471 and count who are “whining, distorting and smearing”.
Have any thoughts on my ‘Swiss’ model for gun control… that I posted way, way up there?
Or the founders intentions when they defeated the ‘individual’ right to bear arms 3 times at the Constitutional convention…
Or anything on topic? Other than, ‘take a look at the liberal name-callers…’ anything?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pmSAYS the TARD that is ALL ABOUT BASHING DEMOCRATS and who is TOO BUSY MAKING CLAIMS LIKE “YOU SUPPORT IRAN, but want to KILL THIS MAN.” instead of being ABLE to DISCUSS A TOPIC without YOUR SLANT!!! ROTFL! Your PROJECTIONS are *TRULY* PSYCHOTIC!
Not my words. I only answer to my words, I have no control over what others say.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pmbelac Says:
jay!
As far as “whining,distorting,and smearing” just look at post # 1 through #471 and count who are “whining, distorting and smearing”.
Have any thoughts on my ‘Swiss’ model for gun control… that I posted way, way up there?
Or the founders intentions when they defeated the ‘individual’ right to bear arms 3 times at the Constitutional convention…
Or anything on topic? Other than, ‘take a look at the liberal name-callers…’ anything?
Hi belac. How you doing today?
No I have no comments on that today. I stopped beating that dead horse a long time ago. Would it change your mind if I did? I don’t think so.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pmYET you are HERE *ANSWERING* for RUSH’S WORDS and that of STEELE. You REALLY need to DIG DEEPER inside your own PATHOLOGY JUNIOR!
I’m not answering for anyone but myself. Sorry Pal but I don’t fall into the Limbaugh trap.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:14 pmThen why post to this thread, jay?
We’re discussing sensible ‘gun control’ and we did very civilly for over a hundred posts before Archie showed up and started his nonsense…
Why the ‘we can’t have a reasonable discussion with these people’ nonsense and then refuse the discussion?
I wonder…
March 11th, 2009 at 1:14 pmNeither was a SERIAL KILLER you IGNORANT JACK*SS!
Nice language. A sign of weakness Pal.
No YOUR POINT was that a SERIAL KILLER was a LIBERAL, yet during that SAME TIME there were LOTS of SERIAL KILLERS that were JUST NICE CONSERVATIVE WHITE MEN NEXT DOOR. ;)
Not my point at all. You need to get with the conversation. Re read my posts. They are in English.
It WASN’T? So MASS MURDER is *OK* sometimes, and DIFFERENT than *OTHERS*? Wow you CONS are SUCH SICKOS! See I’m REVILED by BOTH and I see BOTH as the sign of a SICK MIND – you however *IDENTIFY* with one of those acts – VERY TELLING!
I never said mass murder was OK. Tell me how many of those soldiers were Democrats and how many were Republicans? Then your argument might be relevant to the discussion.
I don’t “IDENTIFY” with any of those things. I’m sure in your mind I do though.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pmArchie’s first post at #193 after HOURS of reasonable discussion…
Archie B Says:
There is no legitimate civilian use for weapons designed for this purpose.
———–
Wanna bet?
He then refused to back that statement up for hours and called people ‘fos’ liars… I wonder why things disintegrated…
LOL, huh jay?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:22 pmbelac Says:
Archie’s first post at #193 after HOURS of reasonable discussion…
Archie B Says:
There is no legitimate civilian use for weapons designed for this purpose.
———–
Wanna bet?
He then refused to back that statement up for hours and called people ‘fos’ liars… I wonder why things disintegrated…
LOL, huh jay?
It’s not my fault for the direction this conversation is taking. I just posted to Pets statement and now Mr Hates Facts has turned it into a name calling free for all like he always does.
He only knows one way to communicate with others so I don’t blame him. What can I say. LOL huh belac.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pmI also don’t understand how identifying who has more domestic terrorists, ‘liberals or conservatives,’ furthers this discussion.
I would prefer to see sensible gun control laws for ALL Americans, (that’s both groups…) I think that would cut down on the rate of gun deaths.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pmSure- RHF can be abrasive… Archie B. is equally so… how does highlighting RHF’s faults and ignoring Archie B.’s further the discussion?
It doesn’t.
The fact remains that if you look at comments #1- #192 they are generally thoughtful and respectful… just an observation.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pmSURE it WAS you CALLED A SERIAL KILLER a TERRORIST. That’s INSANELY STUPID!
Do you know anything about Manson.
The killings were meant to start a revolution between the Blacks and the whites and topple the government. End result was for him to rise to lead the government. That’s terrorism Pal. You need to know your limitations.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pmYou’re nowhere near smart enough to see what an idiot that post makes you out to be. Condoning violence towards a pastor by one of those fun loving gays.
Good Point.
Don’t you wish there were tighter gun-control laws to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would ’shoot out the windows’ of a car bearing a controversial bumper sticker?
I do.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pmbelac Says:
Sure- RHF can be abrasive… Archie B. is equally so… how does highlighting RHF’s faults and ignoring Archie B.’s further the discussion?
It doesn’t.
The fact remains that if you look at comments #1- #192 they are generally thoughtful and respectful… just an observation.
I highlight RHF because he is calling me those names. If the comments aren’t directed towards me then why should I comment on them.
I did read the posts and right from the beginning they almost all had an agenda. Want to guess what that was?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pmI did read the posts and right from the beginning they almost all had an agenda. Want to guess what that was?
Sure they had an agenda.
I want sensible gun control laws.
You saying you saw an agenda does not make them “whining,distorting,and smearing” which is what you called them.
This is the forum for discussing that agenda… something you refuse to do because you’d rather have a slap fight with RHF about ‘domestic terrorism.’
Carry on…
March 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pmArchie… I said the majority of the comments.
What are the majority of the 300+ comments after you arrived like?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:38 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
SURE it WAS you CALLED A SERIAL KILLER a TERRORIST. That’s INSANELY STUPID!
Do you know anything about Manson.
The killings were meant to start a revolution between the Blacks and the whites and topple the government. End result was for him to rise to lead the government. That’s terrorism Pal. You need to know your limitations.
Well to BEGIN WITH a RACE WAR was NOT a LIBERAL POSITION. Second of all what you are DESCRIBING is an ANARCHIST not a LIBERAL – you IGNORANT PIECE OF SH*T MORON!
Anarchy from your friendly group of leftist Liberal hippy organization.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:38 pmBTW Archie… Dr. Matt’s on YOUR side on this one.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pmAnarchy from your friendly group of leftist Liberal hippy organization.
Don’t you think it would have been good if Charles Manson hadn’t had so many guns?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:42 pmDavid Koresh, too?
republicans hate facts Says:
Hey JAY starting a WAR and ASSUMING CONTROL while STARTING A WAR BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES – that sounds more like the GEORGE BUSH/ RUSH LIMBAUGH PLATFORM! Ok MAYBE so we AGREE that this platform DOES REPRESENT *TERRORISM* but MANSON sounds MORE LIKE ONE OF YOURS! ;)
Right maybe but in this case it was coming from your friendly leftist of the 70’s. Hey RHF, who started the KKK?. A little trivia for you.
As far as agreeing that this is terrorism, I don’t. I see it as free speech, nothing more. A great thing, free speech, you know the Constitution and all.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pmArchie B Says:
belac Says:
Archie… I said the majority of the comments.
What are the majority of the 300+ comments after you arrived like?
————
The fact remains that if you look at comments #1- #192 they are generally thoughtful and respectful… just an observation.
No, you didn’t. You can blame me all you want it says much about you.
Okay… let’s play games. jay likes that… what do you think I meant when I said ‘generally?’
Could it be that I meant ‘most’ of the comments were ‘thoughtful and respectful?’
Hmmm… could be.
BTW Archie… You’re nowhere near smart enough to see what an idiot that post makes you out to be.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pmbelac Says:
Anarchy from your friendly group of leftist Liberal hippy organization.
Don’t you think it would have been good if Charles Manson hadn’t had so many guns?
David Koresh, too?
Manson didn’t have a lot of guns. Where did you get that tidbit of info. His group did his murders with clubs and knives.
David Koresh??? Where did that come from? I don’t recall Koresh going out and killing anyone. He did defend his home when it was attacked in the middle of the night by people dressed all in black.
Reno taught him a lesson though. She killed them all, every man, women and child.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:46 pmIt would have been better if janet reno didn’t have them torched to death.
I wonder if that would have happened if he hadn’t had all those guns.
What do you think?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:46 pmHe did defend his home when it was attacked in the middle of the night by people dressed all in black.
Middle of the night? Where’d you get that info? They came in the daytime to arrest him for stockpiling illegal weapons he’d collected very easily from gun shows and converted to full auto in violation of the law?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pmbelac Says:
It would have been better if janet reno didn’t have them torched to death.
I wonder if that would have happened if he hadn’t had all those guns.
What do you think?
Do you know what led up to this action. Koresh never hurt anyone. He had a warrant but could of been arrested away from his compound while buying groceries. None of it should of ever happened. And as far as I understand, it is still legal to own guns in this country. Reno blew that one for sure.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pmMason’s Guns:
From Wikipedia:
There’s more… they had guns, jay.
Whaddya know?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pmNone of it should of ever happened. And as far as I understand, it is still legal to own guns in this country. Reno blew that one for sure.
Agreed.
But what botched it was the “gun-ho” (if you’ll permit me) guns blazing attitude of the A.T.F.
An attitude I see too often replicated in too many on both sides of law enforcement.
It is illegal to own the guns the Branch Davidians owned.
It should be much harder to get guns you can make ‘full auto’
That’s the topic we’re discussing.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pmbelac Says:
He did defend his home when it was attacked in the middle of the night by people dressed all in black.
Middle of the night? Where’d you get that info? They came in the daytime to arrest him for stockpiling illegal weapons he’d collected very easily from gun shows and converted to full auto in violation of the law?
Your right belac it happened at 9 AM. They weren’t there because of his stockpiling of arms. They were there to serve a warrant. It was how they tried to enter the compound that caused the gunfire. Read what happened belac. It could of been handled better. Be that as it may, did ALL the people need to die??????? Men, women, children??????
March 11th, 2009 at 1:59 pmOwning a few guns gives the gov’t the right to kill you?
nope… but firing on police officers and A.T.F. agents with assault rifles generally ends poorly for everyone involved.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we had fewer assault rifles to worry about being mis-used?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pmRead what happened belac. It could of been handled better. Be that as it may, did ALL the people need to die??????? Men, women, children??????
I watched and ‘experienced’ what happened live, jay.
The warrant was for illegal firearms.
It should have been handled differently.
Shooting is always bad for everyone… this was no exception.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pmIt is illegal to own the guns the Branch Davidians owned.
It should be much harder to get guns you can make ‘full auto’
It is against the law to have a gun that fires full auto. It’s been against the law since 1933.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pmbelac Says:
Read what happened belac. It could of been handled better. Be that as it may, did ALL the people need to die??????? Men, women, children??????
I watched and ‘experienced’ what happened live, jay.
The warrant was for illegal firearms.
It should have been handled differently.
Shooting is always bad for everyone… this was no exception.
Are you saying that your opinion comes from personal experience and no URL’s are needed to back it up? Now we are making progress.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pmjay says:Your right belac it happened at 9 AM. They weren’t there because of his stockpiling of arms.
Really?
From Wiki again:
March 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Hey Archie Bullshit, Is your ass sore yet or can I jump in? I see the dumbass in Alabama that killed ten people had 2 assault rifles in adddition to handguns and a shotgun. Kinda “shoots” Steele’s argument in the foot, figuratively speaking. Got anything intelligent to say for a change, Archie Bullshit? Just kidding. Look who I’m asking?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pmOh, there’s my evidence as well jay… see?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pmIt is against the law to have a gun that fires full auto. It’s been against the law since 1933.
It is not illegal to buy guns that can become ‘full auto’ with a little filing of the machinery… you guys know that, right?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:07 pmSo DAVID BROKE THE LAW and REFUSED to LET THE LAW IN. Sounds like DAVID caused this to happen! Nice way to DEFLECT BLAME as USUAL! At least you CONS are CONSISTENT in your COP OUTS and UNWILLINGNESS to ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for *YOUR* actions! Like your WHINING about SOMEONE COMING AT YOU because of your JACK*SS POSTS! ROTFL! MORON!
He didn’t refuse to let the cops in. They broke down the door and crashed through the windows on two floors of the compound.
The only “JACK*SS POSTS!” are coming from you RHF. Everyone else seem to be in control of their emotions here.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pmwiki is not exactly the best source.
Did it not happen that way, Archie?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pmHow UPSET would YOU BE if we were ABLE to LEGISLATE YOUR RELIGION AWAY as a CULT. Heck you’ve THREATENED to get INTO A FIGHT HERE, what’s the DIFFERENCE?
It seems to me that the same process that elected Obama was used to vote on Prop 8. Correct me if I’m wrong on this.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pmUsing rhf logic, he thinks jennifer moore deserved to be raped because she was out on the street at 2am drunk wearing a mini-skirt.
No, That’s Bill O’Reilly’s logic… http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/01/oreilly-rape-speak/#comments
March 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pmYou people are getting way off subject now. It’s not what I was posting to so see ya. You guys keep it up though.
Remember that your language is a sign of your upbringing. Maybe that will help with some of your verbiage and respect for others.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pmArchie.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pmDon’t you think it’s a good idea to keep assault rifles and handguns out of the hands of anarchists?
You people are getting way off subject now. It’s not what I was posting to so see ya. You guys keep it up though.
No- we’re returning to the subject.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pmWhich you refused to address… interesting.
See ya!
It is not illegal to buy guns that can become ‘full auto’ with a little filing of the machinery… you guys know that, right?
I do belac. Then it becomes illegal.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:21 pmI do belac. Then it becomes illegal.
So doesn’t it make sense to have a little more oversight of those weapons that have this capability?
That’s all I’m saying… read comment #103…
March 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pmAlleging that the Davidians had violated federal law, the ATF obtained search and arrest warrants for Koresh and specific followers on weapons charges due to the many firearms they had accumulated.
Not always the best source of information. The warrant for his arrest was from the modification of a firearm that he sold to an undercover agent.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:24 pmWe can do this in an adult manner… but we need to stop dealing with this issue in such a ‘Mickey Mouse’ half-baked fashion… we need sensible gun control like the rest of the industrialized world.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:24 pmNot always the best source of information. The warrant for his arrest was from the modification of a firearm that he sold to an undercover agent.
Oh, I’m sorry… completely different. And the search warrant was to search the compound for illegal weapons stockpiles… just sayin’
March 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pmMore people are killed with cars than guns. Should we lower the speed limit to say 25mph?
No, but we license drivers, require car owners to carry insurance and have strict age limits and knowledge and ability tests from time to time…
I’d agree to that model for gun ownership.
In a heartbeat.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:26 pmArchie B Says:
More people are killed with cars than guns. Should we lower the speed limit to say 25mph?
I do know that my gun has killed less people then Ted Kennedy’s car. Apples and Oranges though. If someone wants to kill another person then they will find a way even if the gun was never invented.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pmYet more people still die in cars than are killed by guns. How does being required to have insurance going to save lives? 16 in most states is “strict?”
Stricter than gun control laws, innit?
How many cars are owned and operated everyday per capita in the United States?
How many guns are owned and operated everyday per capita in the United States?
As jay said, Apples to Oranges… but why shouldn’t the laws be just as strict for guns as they are for cars?
Do you have an argument?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pmbelac sez:
It is not illegal to buy guns that can become ‘full auto’ with a little filing of the machinery… you guys know that, right?
Jack Responds…
It appears that what we “know” and what some think they “know” is quite a bit different…
Quoting from myself…
Many people complain that the semi-autos sold today are easily converted to full automatic weapons. They have no understanding of either the mechanics of firearms or the laws prohibiting even the whiff of an full auto.
Federal law declares that any gun that is easily converted to an automatic weapon IS an automatic weapon for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted — (National Firearms Act as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986). That NON-automatic pistols or carbines that fire from an open bolt are Title 2/Class III restricted under Federal law, because they can be converted by filing the sear.
It is a crime to even ATTEMPT to convert a legal semi-auto to fully automatic fire even in the absence of a conversion kit. The attempt is the same thing as possessing an illegal, unregistered machine gun. If you possess even a single PART from a full auto gun and attempt to fit it to a semi-auto, you’ve just tried to assemble an illegal machine gun. That is a 10 year prison sentence and/or a $250,000 dollar fine.
The semi-auto versions of any military-type rifle have to be specifically designed so that CANNOT accept parts from their full auto cousins without requiring major alteration to the gun itself. As a result, the presence of the alteration is prima facie evidence that you were, in fact, intending to manufacture an illegal machine gun.
This is difficult to explain to someone who isn’t familiar with the internals of firearms. I can tell you it is not easy to convert any semi-auto rifle to full-auto. It requires a machine shop in many cases and a machinist used to working to very precise specs. And manufacture of a conversion kit would be considered manufacture of a machine gun under the law. Hence why you don’t see the kits.
This, and much more truthful info can be found here:
http: //hubpages.com /hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not
March 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pmJack- what happened in Waco then?
They sure got a lot of ‘em somehow, didn’t they?
Why shouldn’t we require gun operators to be licensed like car operators, Jack?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pmAlso, those laws were instated for revenue, ONLY.
Great! We’ll increase revenue too!
March 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pmAlso, those laws were instated for revenue, ONLY.
P.S. bull.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pmbelac sez:
No, but we license drivers, require car owners to carry insurance and have strict age limits and knowledge and ability tests from time to time…
I’d agree to that model for gun ownership.
Jack responds…
Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.
Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.
Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes
Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes
Can I buy Hummers virtually identical to the ones the troops use? Yes.
Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No
If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No
Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes
Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No
Do I need a license to buy a car? No (in most states)
Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.
Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes
Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes.
Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes
Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes
In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No
In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store my car partially disassembled. No
Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)
Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No
Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No
Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No
Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No
Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not
Can I legally drive my car into ANY state/city in the nation with EVERY jurisdiction honoring my registration/licen se? Yes
Shall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars
March 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pmJack- it took me less than 30 sec. to figure out how to convert an AK-47 to full auto online… weird.
I need a twist tie and to file the second sear!
Strange, you said it would be so hard.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pmShall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars
No, I want to treat shooters and gun owners like drivers and car owners.
Get it?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pmbelac sez:
Why shouldn’t we require gun operators to be licensed like car operators?
Jack responds…
I’m all for it… as soon as we require journalists to be “licensed like car operators” also.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pmScratch that… at least as regulated as car drivers and car owners… we could go further if you like.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pmJack:
March 11th, 2009 at 2:45 pmAhh, the First Amendment… clever. Except an ‘individual right to bear arms’ was discussed and rejected THREE TIMES in the Constitutional convention… I thought you guys loved ‘original intent,’ weird.
belac sez:
Jack- it took me less than 30 sec. to figure out how to convert an AK-47 to full auto online… weird.
I need a twist tie and to file the second sear!
Strange, you said it would be so hard.
jack replies:
Suuuure, you did. No cite, eh.
And you can verify that this actually, you know, works?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pmbelac sez:
No, I want to treat shooters and gun owners like drivers and car owners.
Get it?
Jack replies…
Nope… cause that is exactly what I posted… treating gun owners just the same as car owners. What part of that did you have difficulty understanding?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pmHere’s a Judge on the history of the second amendment…
http://www.saf.org/AntiGunJudge.html
… that individual right was just ‘created’ by Justice Scalia… damn activist judges…
March 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pmSuuuure, you did. No cite, eh.
No, I won’t cite it… you guys don’t need any help.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pmbelac seZ:
Jack:
Ahh, the First Amendment… clever. Except an ‘individual right to bear arms’ was discussed and rejected THREE TIMES in the Constitutional convention… I thought you guys loved ‘original intent,’ weird.
Jack responds…
Perhaps you can show us which copy of the Constitution you have that leaves the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed out. Be specific. Give detail.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pmJust did.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pmyou know that ‘the People’ is collective, right?
It’s weird, ’cause they could have said ‘any person’ or ‘individuals’ but they didn’t.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:52 pmA well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
What can this mean?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pmCan you show me your copy that leaves this out?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pmA well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
belac sez:
… that individual right was just ‘created’ by Justice Scalia… damn activist judges…
jack responds…
How odd that the other eight judges agreed with him.
Here is the deal, Dear Readers… you can believe some mope on the net who is attempting to make it up as he goes along… or you can get factual, cited documented facts here…
http: //www.gunfacts. info/
March 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pmbelac sez:
No, I won’t cite it… you guys don’t need any help.
Jack responds…
Why does this not surprize us that you can’t make the cite.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 2:56 pmWhy does this not surprize us that you can’t make the cite.
I dunno… do you got the google? I do.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:56 pmHow odd that the other eight judges agreed with him.
Uhh, no.
Four other justices agreed with him.
You sure are a font of information… if only it were in any way accurate or insightful.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:57 pmNice timing, Steele. On a day when a deranged Alabama gunman kills ten people with an assault rifle, you come out all in favor of them.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
March 11th, 2009 at 2:57 pmbelac Says:
Just did.
I just read your site belac. So much nonsense in a single site.
Opinion not fact belac. Did you read how Hitler eased gun ownership in Germany. Now that was a stretch of the imagination wasn’t it?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:00 pmbelac sez:
you know that ‘the People’ is collective, right?
It’s weird, ’cause they could have said ‘any person’ or ‘individuals’ but they didn’t.
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
What can this mean?
Jack responds…
Far behind the curve on this one. Similar to those who still insist upon a flat earth.
Already asked and well answered in District_of Columbia_v. Heller where all nine justices agreed that there was an individual right. I would certainly encourage the Dear Reader to thumb thru the rulings to see for themselves.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:01 pmNow that was a stretch of the imagination wasn’t it?
Like your ‘individual right to bear arms’ that was rejected three times at the Constitutional convention?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:02 pmbelac Says:
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
What can this mean?
I know belac. Do you?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:02 pmAlready asked and well answered in District_of Columbia_v. Heller where all nine justices agreed that there was an individual right
On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law.
I wonder why I doubt your accuracy on these subjects, jack.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pmThat was pretty simple info.
I know belac. Do you?
Like you ‘know’ that all nine justices agreed there was an individual right?
‘Facts’ like that?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pmbelac Says:
I know belac. Do you?
Like you ‘know’ that all nine justices agreed there was an individual right?
‘Facts’ like that?
Now you do have to back that one up belac. Sorry.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pmBelzac seys:
Uhh, no.
Four other justices agreed with him.
You sure are a font of information… if only it were in any way accurate or insightful.
Jack responds…
Let’s read what Dale Carpenter, one of the most respected legal scholars in the nation, has to say about this…
Chief Justice Roberts came in with the hope of producing more unanimous decisions from the Court. While today’s decision was 5-4, it was actually unanimous on one point: there is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. The split came over the important question of the scope of the right and whether the D.C. law itself was constitutional, but the underlying individual-right theory prevailed over a collective- or states-right interpretation that would give no single person the ability to challenge any type of arms regulation. Thus, an idea that not so long ago seemed radical and even frivolous to many academics and judges now has the assent of all of the Justices, representing a wide range of views about constitutional law and theory.
http:// volokh. com/posts/1214514180.shtml
As the first lines in Justice Stevens’ own dissent comments, “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”
So, Dear Reader… you can judge for yourself just who is “accurate or insightful.” And who is blowing smoke.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pmbelac sez:
I wonder why I doubt your accuracy on these subjects, jack.
That was pretty simple info.
jack repsonds…
And you probably also insist that an elephant is no different from a snake because both have portions of them that are long and skinny. The difference between you and I is I quote from the entire opinion… and you can’t, eh.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:14 pmNow you do have to back that one up belac. Sorry.
No problem.
Here’s the ruling: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
Notice the part where Justice Breyer dissents?
Here’s a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Notice the part where is says 5 to 4 decision?
You wonder why I doubt your ability to comprehend and relate factual information?
You wrote this:
where all nine justices agreed that there was an individual right
after I told you it was a 5 to 4 decision that reversed years of legal opinion… damn activist judges…
March 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pmYou wrote this:
where all nine justices agreed that there was an individual right
after I told you it was a 5 to 4 decision that reversed years of legal opinion… damn activist judges…
Sorry but I didn’t write that and that wasn’t my question. My post was what is a well regulated militia.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pmConstant sez:
Nice timing, Steele. On a day when a deranged Alabama gunman kills ten people with an assault rifle, you come out all in favor of them.
Jack replies…
Please explain to us why the actions of, by your own words, a “deranged” individual should affect my rights as a law abiding person.
Please explain to us what other actions a “deranged” person may take that should affects my rights as a law abiding person.
And are you aware that the worst mass murder by an individual in America, with almost 100 people killed, was done with a gallon can of gas?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:20 pmBelac, it seems to me that Jack has you on the ropes on the Supreme Court decision thing. It was a unanimous decision in favor of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms..
March 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pmSorry jay, confused you and Jack for a moment.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm#
#
belac Says:
Sorry jay, confused you and Jack for a moment.
No problem belac. It’s easy to do here. Think nothing of it.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:25 pmI have to go anyway. I’ve been trying to get out of here for an hour now. Have fun. See ya later everyone.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:25 pmIt was a unanimous decision in favor of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms..
Nope… read it. ‘Militas’ and ‘Regulation’ figure heavily in the arguments.
Half the Justices agree that the Government can regulate the possession and use of a fire arm… it is not a ‘blanket’ right but one subject to regulation.
Which is all I’m arguing for… and all I have argued for.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pmbelac sez:
Notice the part where Justice Breyer dissents?
jack repsonds:
As the first lines in Justice Stevens’ own dissent (which was signed by ALL FOUR justices including Breyer) comments “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”
March 11th, 2009 at 3:28 pmbelac sez:
Which is all I’m arguing for… and all I have argued for.
Jack responds…
Classic case of moving the goal posts after having his head handed to him by factual data.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pmbelac sez:
Half the Justices agree that the Government can regulate the possession and use of a fire arm… it is not a ‘blanket’ right but one subject to regulation.
Jack responds:
Sorry, son, but you can’t even get this one right. All nine justices “agree that the Government can regulate the possession and use of a fire arm…”
March 11th, 2009 at 3:31 pmThat’s tricky wording, isn’t it.
The right can be enforced by individuals… still, the argument that there is a universal individual right to keep and bear arms that cannot be subject to regulation is ridiculous…
What’s more he says this… “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ ” Hmm… but didn’t you just say that’s EXACTLY what the ruling decides?
Weird.
Sensible regulation is all I’ve argued for.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:33 pmClassic case of moving the goal posts after having his head handed to him by factual data.
Classic case of projection…
Where have you shown that the ‘individual’ right was not discussed and rejected THREE times in Philadelphia?
Read where they say that the ruling is NOT on ‘individual vs. collective’ rights and get back to me…
A collective right may be enforced by individuals… indeed it must be.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pmSorry, son, but you can’t even get this one right. All nine justices “agree that the Government can regulate the possession and use of a fire arm…”
Great!
Then let’s get down to it, shall we?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pmHere’s something from Steven’s dissention as well:
Weird… no explicit ‘individual’ right there… strange, I was told Stevens agreed.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pmSeems Stevens knows his history, how about you Jack?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pmbelac sez:
That’s tricky wording, isn’t it.
Jack responds…
Seems every legal commentator understands it but some amateurs struggle.
belac sez:
The right can be enforced by individuals… still, the argument that there is a universal individual right to keep and bear arms that cannot be subject to regulation is ridiculous…
Jack responds…
Brrrrrrr… Classic strawman argument posted. No one here has argued, and it wasn’t argued in the Heller case, that the “right to keep and bear arms that cannot be subject to regulation is ridiculous”
Since no one is arguing it pretty much gives away the idea that belac is bringing it up out of desperation and to sow confusion.
Pitiful.
belac sez:
What’s more he says this… “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ ” Hmm… but didn’t you just say that’s EXACTLY what the ruling decides?
Jack responds…
Of course, silly, the case isn’t about it… because he concedes in the VERY NEXT sentence that they all agree with the individual right.
belac sez:
Sensible regulation is all I’ve argued for.
Jack sez:
That’s as much of an outright lie that I’ve seen in months.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pmOf course, silly, the case isn’t about it… because he concedes in the VERY NEXT sentence that they all agree with the individual right.
The very next line.
Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.
Does it say granted and I missed it?
Did you read the rest of his dissension?
So you’re for regulation of firearms?
Great! I propose the Swiss model… see above.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pmBelac sez:
Then let’s get down to it, shall we?
Jack replies:
Okay then… give us five gun control laws that
– don’t violate the principal of prior restraint that virtually all other laws touching the BOR must adhere to
– Don’t hamper, in any way, shape or form, the freedom of the law abiding citizen
– are actually going to, you know, work
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
March 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pmBelac sez:
Where have you shown that the ‘individual’ right was not discussed and rejected THREE times in Philadelphia?
Read where they say that the ruling is NOT on ‘individual vs. collective’ rights and get back to me…
jack replies:
Where have you shown us that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is missing from the Constitution.
belac sez:
A collective right may be enforced by individuals… indeed it must be.
Jack replies:
There is no mention anywhere, at anytime, “collective” rights in the Constitution.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pmThere is no mention anywhere, at anytime, “collective” rights in the Constitution.
The People… collective.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pmOkay then… give us five gun control laws that
– don’t violate the principal of prior restraint that virtually all other laws touching the BOR must adhere to
– Don’t hamper, in any way, shape or form, the freedom of the law abiding citizen
– are actually going to, you know, work
I propose a model similar to the Swiss system… which I did in my post all the way back at #103… I know that’s ‘moving the goalposts’ and all but I stand by it.
Wait, that’s not moving the ‘goal posts’ at all, is it?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pmberlac sez:
I was told Stevens agreed.
Jack replies…
Yeppers… he told you that in his own words.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pmRHF sez:
It ALSO legislated SLAVERY and BLOCKED BLACKS from having EQUAL RIGHTS. The MAJORITY *OPPRESSING* the MINORITIES while being UNAMERICAN is VERY CONSISTENT for you TARDS!
jack replies…
You should be ashamed of yourself to post about the Democrats that way…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pmbelec sez:
I propose a model similar to the Swiss system
Jack replies…
So I get to keep a fully (real) automatice rifle under my bed?
Unhuh
March 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pmbelac sez:
The People… collective.
Jack replies…
So all the rights are “collective”?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pmSo I get to keep a fully (real) automatice rifle under my bed?
Unhuh
Yep.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pmAs long as you are between the ages of 20-34 and use it in militia drills and training… also you don’t get ammunition at home.
rhf sez:
You’re a PIECE OF SH*T!
Jack replies…
And that, Dear Readers, is the very best he can do, eh.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pmrhf sez:
We already HAVE a NATIONAL GUARD – that *IS* our MILITIA!
Jack replies…
Funny how the Founding Fathers could look 100plus years into the future and see the National Guard. I wonder if they also knew who was going to win Superbowl I?
rhf sez:
Grow up you WHINY LITTLE PIECE OF SH!T!
Jack replies…
And that, Dear Readers, is the very best he can do, eh.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 4:10 pmrhf sez:
SHUT UP C*NT!
Jack replies…
And that, Dear Readers, is the very best he can do, eh.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 4:11 pmFunny how the Founding Fathers could look 100plus years into the future and see the National Guard. I wonder if they also knew who was going to win Superbowl I?
Oh, so now you like original intent?
What about the rejection of the inclusion of this then:
“[T]hat the said Constitution
never be construed to authorize Congress to . . . prevent
the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,
from keeping their own arms.”
Weird. Sounds like the Founding Fathers voted on this issue…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pmbelac sez:
Yep.
As long as you are between the ages of 20-34 and use it in militia drills and training… also you don’t get ammunition at home.
Jack replies
Better not tell our attorney general. He’ll have a heart attack and be gone in mere moments.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pmbelac sez:
Oh, so now you like original intent?
What about the rejection of the inclusion of this then:
“[T]hat the said Constitution
never be construed to authorize Congress to . . . prevent
the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,
from keeping their own arms.”
Weird. Sounds like the Founding Fathers voted on this issue…
Jack responds…
No cite, eh.
And what was left out doesn’t matter. It was what was put in… the individual right to keep and bear arms just as our nine justices acknowledged in Heller.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pmBetter not tell our attorney general. He’ll have a heart attack and be gone in mere moments.
Do you have an argument?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pmNo cite, eh.
Um, it’s from Steven’s dissension in Heller that you’re so familiar with…
where he notes that it’s very telling that they DIDN’T expressly protect the individual right when they had the chance…
in fact, the Founding Fathers didn’t three times.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pmbeleac sez:
Do you have an argument?
Jack repsonds…
The only argument that counts is that we are not the Swiss. We are Americans living under the Constitution of the United States. Any other discussion about the Swiss is really moot unless you want to bring up chocolate and then we can continue.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pmThe only argument that counts is that we are not the Swiss.
Weird.
You asked for gun laws that worked.
I gave you the one I like… you say we’re not Swiss, so no go!
Is that ‘moving the goalposts?’
March 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pmrhf sez:
You’re WETTING YOUR PANTS at the thought of someone taking the only P*N*S out of your HANDS that MAKES YOU FEEL SAFE THOUGH!
jack responds:
punus?
Ponus?
Panis?
Ponas?
Panes?
pinus?
Somewhere in there there must be a point but I sure can’t figure it out. Maybe I’ll ask my wife what she has in her hands that makes her feel “safe.” She might know. She watches Vanna White all the time.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pmrhf sez:
jack burton = UNEDUCATED P*SSY
Jack Responds…
And this, Dear Readers, is the very best that our poster can do. Pitiful, eh.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pmThe only argument that counts is that we are not the Swiss.
And this, Dear Readers, is the very best that Jack can do. Pitiful, eh.
;-)
March 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pmBelac sez:
Um, it’s from Steven’s dissension in Heller that you’re so familiar with…
where he notes that it’s very telling that they DIDN’T expressly protect the individual right when they had the chance…
in fact, the Founding Fathers didn’t three times.
jack replies:
You can’t get much more expressive than the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pmYou can’t get much more expressive than the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yeah, you can. you can say ‘individual’ which they didn’t… three times… and you left of the preamble again, why?
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
They did include that, why?
I wonder…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pmBelac sez:
Weird.
You asked for gun laws that worked.
I gave you the one I like… you say we’re not Swiss, so no go!
Is that ‘moving the goalposts?’
Jack replies…
Actually, no you didn’t answer my post in the way that it was asked. And you just misquoted me there by not fully quoting me. I don’t know why you would purposefully misquote me. Perhaps you can explain that to us.
But it sure doesn’t do your arguments any good when we understand that you are willing to do that.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pmWhy should I have to find ‘five’ examples?
I’m only advocating one…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pmrhf sez:
WELL since YOU DON’T HAVE ONE I can see why you’d have TROUBLE understanding WHAT IT IS! ;)
Jack replies…
Well, I certainly don’t have a panos. Do you?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pmAnd you just misquoted me there by not fully quoting me. I don’t know why you would purposefully misquote me. Perhaps you can explain that to us.
But it sure doesn’t do your arguments any good when we understand that you are willing to do that.
Hmm, so you can change the meaning of something by leaving important words out?
Like this:
You can’t get much more expressive than the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Where you misquoted the Constitution by leaving this out:
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
I don’t know why you would purposefully misquote the Constitution. Perhaps you can explain that to us.
But it sure doesn’t do your arguments any good when we understand that you are willing to do that.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pmbelac sez:
And this, Dear Readers, is the very best that Jack can do. Pitiful, eh.
Jack replies…
Thank you, son, for acknowledging that I am such your master at posting the only way you can give me true homage and honor is to attempt to copy my style.
You don’t know the shivers of egotistical joy it gives me to know that you are like an apprentice lapping at my feet, eager to learn how to do this kind of artful wordsmithing.
But please… you must learn your own style… otherwise you’ll only be a second-rate Jack — never as good as the Master.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pmBut please… you must learn your own style… otherwise you’ll only be a second-rate Jack — never as good as the Master.
My style is like Akido… I use the weight of people’s over-wrought arguments and ’style’ to topple their arguments… see #693…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pmI could teach you… but I’d have to charge.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pm“Dear Readers”- No one gives a rat’s arse what you think “dear reader” I checked out your gun blog. Plenty of delusional racist gun nuts on there. Love your avatar too by the way. Eagle with american flag motif. You’re so patriotic. Shouldn’t you be off masterbating wrapped in the flag with an M-16 in the other hand.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jack burton Says:
We are Americans living under the Constitution of the United States.
Why don’t you TELL THAT to the GOP! You TARDS *SHRED* the CONSTITUTION at WILL! Heck, your BUDDIE CHUCK NORRIS is PLANNING a *REVOLUTION* right now because a BLACK MAN is in the white house!
You’re a HYPOCRITE and an IDIOT!
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2]
March 11th, 2009 at 4:39 pmThe entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
You don’t get to use ‘original intent’ as an argument AND use this:
The term militia is commonly used today
If you want the ‘original intent’ you have to discover what the Founder’s meant when they wrote militia… I’m not advocating ‘original intent,’ I think it’s ridiculous… but you gotta be intellectually consistent, jay.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pmrhf sez:
belac, I don’t think jack understands what the word “militia” means! ROTFL!
Jack responds…
Well, you can ask me… or you can ask the Congress of the United STates…
Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, “Militia: composition and classes” in its entirety:
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
Still doubtful? Check it out for yourself at Findlaw.com
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pmSo we’re closer to the Swiss than you though, huh Jack?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pmbelzec sez:
They did include that, why?
I wonder…
Jack responds..
Always willing to help out a true seeker of the truth…
http:// http://www.2asisters. org/unabridged.htm
March 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pmrhf sez:
SAYS the pitiful c*nt that doesn’t own a DICTIONARY! ;)
jack replies:
My dictionary has real words in it. Your’s seems to be flawed and marked up all over with astricks.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:51 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Anarchy from your friendly group of leftist Liberal hippy organization.
ROTFL! SEE now YOU *CLAIM* you aren’t c,alling names but you just used the term ANARCHIST to describe liberals. That’s what I mean by DISHONEST and PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE. You REALLY should SEE A THERAPIST because THERE’S NO WAY you have ANY HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS in your life with THAT KIND OF DYSFUNCTION! ;)
As for ANARCHY, well you should FOLLOW THE ADVICE I give to EVERY CONServaTARD – BUY A DICTIONARY! ;) ANARCHISTS are categorized as THEIR OWN POLITICAL CLUSTER ;) Also someone that WANTS TO APPOINT HIMSELF LEADER isn’t a LIBERAL, that’s more of a *CONSERVATIVE* value. Explains why GEORGE BUSH and RUSH LIMBAUGH share SO MANY of MANSON’S VALUES on RACE and STARTING WARS to GRAB POWER! ;)
You used the term. I just answered your post. Sorry but your attempt to smear me won’t work. I called Manson an anarchist and a leftist liberal hippy which is what he was in response to your post. Get a grip.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pmWow… so now you have to resort to sentence diagramming to make your argument?
Why no ‘individual?’
They had three chances to include it, Jack.
They didn’t.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pmbelzec sez:
My style is like Akido… I use the weight of people’s over-wrought arguments and ’style’ to topple their arguments… see #693…
jack replies…
When you find someone like that let us know. But you’re the one changing your mind every few posts about what you want, and then misquoting people, along with setting up strawman arguments.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pmBut you’re the one changing your mind every few posts about what you want
How?
Read post #103… how has my position changed?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pmbalec sez:
I am only advocating one.
Jack responds.
No, you’re not.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pmNo, you’re not.
Weird. I could have sworn I said I advocate something along the lines of the Swiss model which, strangely, is totally consistent with the needs of the country and the ‘original intent’ of the Founders.
I didn’t?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pmbelac Says:
You don’t get to use ‘original intent’ as an argument AND use this:
The term militia is commonly used today
If you want the ‘original intent’ you have to discover what the Founder’s meant when they wrote militia… I’m not advocating ‘original intent,’ I think it’s ridiculous… but you gotta be intellectually consistent, jay.
If you look to history then a militia is a group of citizens who are required to take up arms to defend the country. Back in those days 1600’s- 1700’s and later they were also required to own a fire arm for use in the defense of the country. this requirement was due to the governments inability to supply guns at a moments notices in much of the country.
Intellectually honest enough belac.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pmrhf sez
What you DON’T HAVE could FILL VOLUMES! ;)
jack responds…
Probably… I never claimed to be the font of all wisdom. But I can spell complete words without having to use the top row of my keyboard.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:58 pmOops… post #139 is my Swiss post… but #103 is good too…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:58 pmYeah, jay. That’s better.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:59 pmbelac sez:
Hmm, so you can change the meaning of something by leaving important words out?
Like this:
You can’t get much more expressive than the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Where you misquoted the Constitution by leaving this out:
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
I don’t know why you would purposefully misquote the Constitution. Perhaps you can explain that to us.
But it sure doesn’t do your arguments any good when we understand that you are willing to do that.
Jack replies…
Apples and oranges, son. You misquoting me changed the meaning of what I was aksing. YOu specifically asked about the portion of the amendment that spoke to individual rights. So I gave you that specific portion.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pmbuzzbomb sez:
Shouldn’t you be off masterbating wrapped in the flag with an M-16 in the other hand.
Jack replies…
And this is the ol’ buzz can do, eh.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pmYOu specifically asked about the portion of the amendment that spoke to individual rights. So I gave you that specific portion.
But that portion is significantly changed by the part that came before… which is why it was included and ‘individual’ was not.
Also, I’m not your son.
I’ll never rule the Universe with you…
March 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pmrhf sez:
Ah that’s just ANOTHER ARBITRARY GOAL POST of the TARD that doesn’t UNDERSTAND that the NATIONAL GUARD is a “WELL REGULATED MILITIA”! ;)
Jack responds…
Dang… just think of all the gambling money the FF lost out on by only reading the future about the milita and not the NFL.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pmrhf sez…
You *ALL* use the IDENTICAL TROLLING HABITS!
jack replies…
Don’t tell me… let me guess…
Excessive astricks?
All CAPS?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pmDang… just think of all the gambling money the FF lost out on by only reading the future about the milita and not the NFL.
So why didn’t they include ‘individual?’
March 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pmrhf sez:
Tell us jack, how often did your daddy hit you? Were you BAD when he did it? Or did he just do it to make sure you wouldn’t BECOME BAD?
jack responds…
Often have this trouble with posters who shred your arguments, eh? Must have real trouble when you actually spent some time in school and found out that the professors knew more than you.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 pmYou misquoting me changed the meaning of what I was aksing.
I still don’t know why I need five, when I’m only advocating one…
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pmjack responds…
Often have this trouble with posters who shred your arguments, eh? Must have real trouble when you actually spent some time in school and found out that the professors knew more than you.
I love it jack.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pmJack?
Any thoughts on why they explicitly excluded ‘individual’ and ‘own’ from the Bill of Rights?
Someone commented on that, who was it? Oh, Justice Stevens!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Seems a Swiss approach is more in keeping with the Founder’s ‘original intent,’ huh?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:28 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Check it out!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:30 pmbelac. I just herd that a kindly German in a country where it is really hard to get a gun because of gun control just killed a bunch of people with a gun.
Something to think about.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:36 pmSomething to think about.
Hmmmm… yes.
What are our gun death rates like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Oh, almost 10 times Germany’s per capita?
Something to think about.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pmSo did a maniac in a country and state where guns are popular and laws are loose, Alabama. One of the anti-gun control arguments is once some maniac starts shooting, someone will pop him. The guy in Alabama killed with impunity until offing himself. I wonder if he bought his assault rifle at a store or gun show or out of the trunk of some criminial. hum?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:42 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
I wonder which WELL REGULATED MILITIA the GUN NUT KILLER in ALABAMA BELONGED TO?
He was a life long Democrat. I don’t think he was in a militia though.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:42 pmAnd the firearm homicide rate is 16.9 times higher than here?
Something to think about indeed…
March 11th, 2009 at 5:42 pmAnd the firearm homicide rate is 16.9 times higher than here?
That should read 16.9 times LOWER…
March 11th, 2009 at 5:42 pmbuzzbomb Says:
So did a maniac in a country and state where guns are popular and laws are loose, Alabama. One of the anti-gun control arguments is once some maniac starts shooting, someone will pop him. The guy in Alabama killed with impunity until offing himself. I wonder if he bought his assault rifle at a store or gun show or out of the trunk of some criminial. hum?
I wonder how many would have been killed if a responsible citizen had been carrying a gun for defense.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pmI wonder how many would have been killed if a responsible citizen had been carrying a gun for defense.
I wonder how many more would have been killed if there had been a shoot out of some kind… your point?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pm#
#
belac Says:
And the firearm homicide rate is 16.9 times higher than here?
That should read 16.9 times LOWER…
Statistics didn’t save anyone’s life though.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
I wonder how many would have been killed if a responsible citizen had been carrying a gun for defense.
ROTFL! THAT’S IRONIC SPECULATION, because we KNOW he WOULDN’T HAVE SHOT ANY if he HADN’T HAD A GUN! ;)
He would of used a knife or a bomb ore a rusty nail instead. He would of found a way because he was that unstable. I’ll take a gun if you please.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pmStatistics didn’t save anyone’s life though.
WTF?
They show that 16.9 times MORE people were murdered with guns in the United States though…
March 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
This whole GUN THING only became an ISSUE after the CIVIL WAR and the GUN MANUFACTURERS sent out the “black scare”! They wanted BUYERS for their GUNS so the FUELED and ENTIRE CAMPAIGN of FEAR and PREJUDICE that resulted in the KKK, the NRA and the SOUTHERN RACIST BIGOT that still THRIVES AS THE GOP BASE!
GUN ADVOCATES are *NOTHING* more than VEILED RACISTS!
Who organized the KKK after the civil war? Why?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:50 pmHe would of used a knife or a bomb ore a rusty nail instead. He would of found a way because he was that unstable. I’ll take a gun if you please.
How many could he have killed with a ‘rusty nail’ before he was stopped, I wonder?
Prolly less than with his gun…
March 11th, 2009 at 5:50 pmbelac Says:
He would of used a knife or a bomb ore a rusty nail instead. He would of found a way because he was that unstable. I’ll take a gun if you please.
How many could he have killed with a ‘rusty nail’ before he was stopped, I wonder?
Prolly less than with his gun…
He had a list. He would have done it one at a time as many serial killers did. The most horrible of serial killers never used a gun.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Who organized the KKK after the civil war? Why?
SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVES that were RILED UP by GUN ADVOCATES! We NOW CALL THEM the GOP BASE after they WERE BRIEFLY the DIXIECRATS and NOW the GOP! ;)
March 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pmSorry, wrong!!! Try again.
He would have done it one at a time as many serial killers did.
WTF?
Okay, guns are great then… glad he had a gun!
How many serial killers have been caught before completing their list?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Sorry, wrong!!! Try again.
YOU SURE ARE!
What’s the problem RHF? Facts got in the way? You should be able to find this. You’re such a smart person.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:56 pmSerial killers and mass murders are WAY DIFFERENT! Mass murders are chicken sh$ts who finally act out and often kill themselves afterwards. Way different animals. The guy in al. wouldn’t have killed people one at a time.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
He had a list. He would have done it one at a time as many serial killers did. The most horrible of serial killers never used a gun.
He was NOT a SERIAL KILLER – he was a LUNATIC WITH A GUN that Right, what you said minus the vulgarity.
My point was that he had a list. He could have done it one at a time. He was a lunatic and would have found a way.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:59 pm#
#
republicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
What’s the problem RHF? Facts got in the way? You should be able to find this. You’re such a smart person.
Of YOU! ;) PROJECT MUCH? You *WISH* you were as SMART as you WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE! But if you WERE that SMART you would have KNOWN what MILITIA MEANT!! ROTFL!!
You’re PWNED DUM BASS, and now you’re just SQUIRMING IN DENIAL! How does it FEEL to know WHAT A COMPLETE DUM BASS YOU ARE? Looks SWEET from HERE! ROTFL! ;)
I posted what a militia and also explained what a militia was back during the writing of the Constitution. Been there and answered that. Just a dodge from what the discussion is now. We are now talking about something else. Answer the question.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:03 pmStop dodging the question. Who started the KKK? That’s the question. Now your answer is………
March 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pmjay,
March 11th, 2009 at 6:09 pmany thoughts on why Jack won’t answer about the ‘express exclusion’ of any mention of individual rights during the writing of the Bill of Rights?
Thomas Jefferson –
March 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pmA little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Who started the KKK? That’s the question. Now your answer is………
Racists in the South.
You’re looking for Democrats… but they were racists first and would not be welcome in the Democratic Party today. Neither would slave owners.
What about that pesky exclusion of ‘individual rights’ in the Bill of Rights?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pmStop dodging the question. Who started the KKK? That’s the question. Now your answer is……… rhf
March 11th, 2009 at 6:12 pmRacists in the South.
You’re looking for Democrats… but they were racists first and would not be welcome in the Democratic Party today. Neither would slave owners.
Thank you belac but I wanted to hear it from RHF.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pmThank you belac but I wanted to hear it from RHF.
And I want to hear from Jack, why the Founder’s voted three times to exclude any mention of an individual right to bear arms… I think were both destined to be disappointed.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pmI already TOLD YOU SIX CONSERVATIVES from Pulaski Tennessee… ;)
You mean Democrats right? Say it RHF. I’ll help you Dem…o..c..r..a..t..s.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:16 pmYou’re looking for Democrats but the answer isn’t Democrats, jay.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pmIt was founded by former members of the Confederate Army… secessionists.
They sound like Democrats to you?
Are you a Nazi, jay?
No?
Are your relatives?
No?
But the Germans started the Nazi party, right? (Well, Hitler was Austrian, but you get the point.)
Any thoughts on why the Founder’s specifically decided to exclude any mention of an individual right to bear arms?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pmbelac Says:
You’re looking for Democrats but the answer isn’t Democrats, jay.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:22 pmIt was founded by former members of the Confederate Army… secessionists.
They sound like Democrats to you? They were D..e..m..o..c..r..a..t..s belac.
republicans hate facts Says:
belac Says:
You’re looking for Democrats but the answer isn’t Democrats, jay.
It was founded by former members of the Confederate Army… secessionists.
They sound like Democrats to you?
He doesn’t understand that BLUE DOGS have NEVER been the CORE DEMOCRATS. They’re even MORE FRINGE for US than LIBERTARIANS are for MANY SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES.
No such thing as red or blue dogs back then. Nice attempt to spin this one.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pmThey were D..e..m..o..c..r..a..t..s belac.
Nazi’s were G..e..r..m..a..n..s jay.
What does that have to do with German political life today?
Unless your referring to the actual Nazi’s who still exist… like the KKK still exists… think they still vote Democrat?
I doubt it.
Any thoughts on why the Founder’s specifically decided to exclude any mention of an individual right to bear arms?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pmNo such thing as red or blue dogs back then. Nice attempt to spin this one.
Well, there never was a red dog democrat as far as I know… what does it have to do with political life today?
Any thoughts on why the Founder’s specifically decided to exclude any mention of an individual right to bear arms?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
belac Says:
Any thoughts on why the Founder’s specifically decided to exclude any mention of an individual right to bear arms?
The BIGGEST IRONY is the LITTLE DISHONEST TARD jay came here WHINING that NO ONE WAS DEBATING! You ask him a SIMPLE DEBATE QUESTION and he’s GOING into what PARTY AFFILIATION people had 150 YEARS AGO!! ROTFL! What a HYPOCRITICAL little P*SSY with a GUN! ;)
Nice try RHF. I never whine. This was a pretty good debate until you came here with your nonsense and vulgarity.
You brought up Republicans as racists and called me a racist. You opened yourself up to the question of “Who were the biggest Racists” so RHF, you brought the conversation here not me. 150 years ago the biggest racists were Democrats. They started a civil war over it.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pm150 years ago the biggest racists were Democrats. They started a civil war over it.
Okay.
What’s that got to do with who’s the biggest racist today?
That’s a silly argument to have but ‘150 years ago the biggest racists were Democrats’ doesn’t really tell you anything about racism today, does it?
The express exclusion of a mention of an individual right to bear arms at the writing of the Bill of Rights can give us insight into the ‘intent’ of the Founder’s thought, can’t it?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:33 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
I already TOLD YOU SIX CONSERVATIVES from Pulaski Tennessee… ;)
You mean Democrats right? Say it RHF. I’ll help you Dem…o..c..r..a..t..s.
ROTFL! No I mean CONSERVATIVE! The REPUBLICANS had no party presence in the south during this time (or were you unaware of this)? Because the WHIGS (who became the REPUBLICANS) were the party of INDUSTRIALISTS, they often attacked the interests of all farmers including southern plantation owners. So those southern CONSERVATIVES were more commonly DEMOCRATS even though they otherwise had more in common with REPUBLICANS. I’m SURE you knew NONE OF THAT THOUGH! ;)
I knew all that RHF. Why is it so hard for you to say that Democrats started the KKK. It’s a fact and we all know that Democrats LOVE FACTS.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pmIt’s a fact and we all know that Democrats LOVE FACTS.
What does that fact tell us?
Nothing about politics today, does it?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:37 pmbelac says:
I am only advocating one.
Jack responds…
After your arguments that the Second Amendment was not designed for individuals was shredded suddenly you wanted to claim that your argument was “only” that the RKBA should be regulated, regardless of what type of right it was.
You had two positions… now you’re down to one.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pmbelac Says:
150 years ago the biggest racists were Democrats. They started a civil war over it.
Okay.
What’s that got to do with who’s the biggest racist today?
That’s a silly argument to have but ‘150 years ago the biggest racists were Democrats’ doesn’t really tell you anything about racism today, does it?
The express exclusion of a mention of an individual right to bear arms at the writing of the Bill of Rights can give us insight into the ‘intent’ of the Founder’s thought, can’t it?
I was called a racist by RHF. He has no idea who I am. Yet he makes statements like that. I just wanted to know that there are many Democrat Racists in the country. You don’t have to be white to be a racist.
As far as the writing of the “Bill Of Rights” and the “Constitution” goes belac, it took a decade to write it and be approved. Many things were added and removed before the final document was signed.
It’s an interesting bit of history. Did you know that there was an anti-Bill of Rights. To use the fact that many things were changed isn’t a very good argument for the finished product.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:44 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
So Jay, how do you RESPOND to the HERE AND NOW? Since the MODERN GOP is READY TO GO TO WAR over a BLACK PRESIDENT led by CHUCK NORRIS wouldn’t that mean that the MODERN GOP is the MOST RACIST FOLKS AROUND? ;)
Well if you give me some specifics I’ll think about it. So far all I see from you is talking points and rhetoric.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:45 pmrhf says…
NICE TO KNOW that I was RIGHT about your DADDY BEATING YOU!
Jack replies…
Poor rhf. Knowing that this is the best he can offer to the discussion and he bravely soldiers on anyway. :-)
March 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pmRHF. You don’t have to be a Republican to be racist and you don’t have to be white either. There are many Democrats who are racist.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pmHi Archie B;
March 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pmI told you it wasn’t gonna just go away…
After your arguments that the Second Amendment was not designed for individuals was shredded suddenly you wanted to claim that your argument was “only” that the RKBA should be regulated, regardless of what type of right it was.
You had two positions… now you’re down to one.
Then why did the Founder’s vote three times to exclude ‘individual rights’ from the Bill of Rights?
I think original intent is a stupid way to view the Constitution… but if you’re going to base your argument on that, shouldn’t you be consistent?
I still support the regulation of arms in a well regulated militia, as I’ve always done.
Shred away… it tickles!
To use the fact that many things were changed isn’t a very good argument for the finished product.
My argument is that you are only going to look at the ‘original intent’ of the Founders you have a long way to go to ignore the fact that they had an opportunity to include ‘individual rights’ explicitly in the document and each time they voted no…
March 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pmbelac sez:
But that portion is significantly changed by the part that came before… which is why it was included and ‘individual’ was not.
Jack replies…
Unfortunately for you, we won (quoting Mr. Obama). And your argument lost. So you can continue to advocate flat earth policy all you want. It really impresses people who read the news.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 6:51 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Well if you give me some specifics I’ll think about it. So far all I see from you is talking points and rhetoric.
How about the RICH CONservaTARD from MAINE that was BUILDING THE DIRTY BOMB in his basement because he HATED OBAMA?
Or how about CHUCK NORRIS that says the CONS are ORGANIZING CELLS and he’s ASKING THE MILITARY to not TAKE ORDERS FROM OBAMA?
I could go ON and ON, but even a MORON LIKE YOU should GET THE POINT? ;)
Yet you still offer no facts that the GOP is planning a revolution and are going to attack the Government. Where did the guy in Main get the radioactive material for his dirty bomb. What Al Qaeda cell was he working for?
What are the Democrat party officials going to do about it.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:52 pmbelac says…
I wonder how many more would have been killed if there had been a shoot out of some kind… your point?
jack responds…
I can point you to hundreds and hundreds of cases where a CCW holder intervened and saved the lives of individuals here:
http:// http://www.claytoncramer. com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
You’re certainly welcome to try to find one where a CCW holder made things worse in a public shoot out. And certainly there would be anti-gun websites trumpeting them from the housetop if such things existed. Should be easy for you to come up with dozens of your examples.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:56 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
RHF. You don’t have to be a Republican to be racist and you don’t have to be white either. There are many Democrats who are racist.
But it’s a LOT EASIER if you ARE! Those DEMOCRATS are also what WE call BLUE DOGS and they are DEFINITELY CONSERVATIVES! Which was KINDA the POINT – MORON!
Nice reply but my response went completely over your head. Too bad. Your name calling is more important than reading.
I’ll try again. Y O U D O N ‘ T H A V E T O B E W H I T E T O B E A R A C I S T. You don’t have to be a Republican either. How’s that. And you call me a moron.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pmUnfortunately for you, we won (quoting Mr. Obama). And your argument lost. So you can continue to advocate flat earth policy all you want. It really impresses people who read the news.
Yes, you won the case this time.
But, as many others have pointed out, if Scalia bases his argument on original intent and then ignores not only the evidence of the THREE times the founder’s rejected the inclusion of an ‘individual’ right as well as the many times ‘whole categories’ of firearms have been banned by a State or Local Government that doesn’t make it the most intellectually coherent argument, does it?
Takes a little mental gymnastics, don’t it?
When will you address the need for a better system of regulation? Like, say, Switzerland’s… which is what I’ve advocated since YESTERDAY.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pmbelec says:
Wow… so now you have to resort to sentence diagramming to make your argument?
Why no ‘individual?’
They had three chances to include it, Jack.
They didn’t.
Jack responds…
Sorry… didn’t realize you would have a problem with scholarship. Should have known better.
And the Constitution is not judged by what is not in there… is it.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:58 pmOh, Jack… you’re a hoot!
March 11th, 2009 at 6:58 pmrhf sez:
ROTFL! THAT’S IRONIC SPECULATION, because we KNOW he WOULDN’T HAVE SHOT ANY if he HADN’T HAD A GUN! ;)
Jack responds…
So you’re guaranteeing that he would not have killed anyone without having a gun? How Godlike of you.
Oh… you’re not saying that, eh. Just “shot.” It’s okay with you that he may have killed all those people some other way… just not with a gun.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pmDuring an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
Norris claims that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, “We Surround Them,” on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.
You mean concerned citizens who don’t care to see the contry on a path to Socialism.
Strange. I thought it was the right of citizens to be involved in the Nation that they live in.
Kinda like what you Democrats did when Bush was in office. I see no difference.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pmrhf sez:
GUN ADVOCATES are *NOTHING* more than VEILED RACISTS!
jack responds…
poor know-nothing. Doesn’t realize, doesn’t understand, that the first three or four presidents of the NRA were generals from the Union Army. Or that the NRA spent months training black deacons in the 1950s on how to shoot to defend their churches.
Flat earther, indeed.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:03 pm#
republicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Nice reply but my response went completely over your head. Too bad. Your name calling is more important than reading.
ROTFL! You THINK SO HIGHLY of YOURSELF in the ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE to JUSTIFY IT! ;)
jay Says:
I’ll try again. Y O U D O N ‘ T H A V E T O B E W H I T E T O B E A R A C I S T. You don’t have to be a Republican either. How’s that. And you call me a moron.
It SURE HELPS! Let’s see. The BLACKS and LATINOS in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY vote for WHITES all of the TIME. And the WHITES in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY vote readily for BLACK CANDIDATES including the PRESIDENT! Now WHICH PARTY is ALMOST 100% WHITE and WON’T VOTE FOR MINORITY CANDIDATES – OOPS! That’s the GOP WHITES! yeah, ANYONE *CAN* be racist, but FEW ACHIEVE YOUR HEIGHTS! ;)
You still didn’t get it. Your biased thought is getting in your way. Try thinking about it a bit more.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:04 pmbelec sez:
any thoughts on why Jack won’t answer about the ‘express exclusion’ of any mention of individual rights during the writing of the Bill of Rights?
jack responds…
Asked and answered. You flat earth believers don’t listen either when people tell you the world is really shaped somewhat like a ball.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:06 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
I’ll put this another way for you jay, the EXCEPTION doesn’t PROVE THE RULE! Over your head probably…
Nor apply that to the people that you hate so much and you will be getting closer.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:06 pmAnd the Constitution is not judged by what is not in there… is it.
I assume that was a question?
Of course it is judged by ‘what is not in there.’
It is remarkable for what they didn’t include… like a mention of slavery… we had to deal with that later.
Read my question, ‘well-regulated militia’ is in there… they included that… but not ‘individual’
Strange.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:06 pmI can say whatever I want about Archie B. I can even say really foul stuff about his mother and sisters and he won’t make a peee. What kind of a man is Archie B?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:08 pmArchie, maybe you could post the story of the egging of a pastors car again. You’ve only done it, like what 50 times in the last twenty four hours.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:10 pmbelzc sez:
Any thoughts on why they explicitly excluded ‘individual’ and ‘own’ from the Bill of Rights?
jack responds…
Specifically the “who” in your question, based upon the quote from Stevens, is “who”? And since the SCOTUS just ruled opposite your little sentence there I’d say you would have just as much luck asking Stephen Hawkings why the earth is flat.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:11 pmAsked and answered. You flat earth believers don’t listen either when people tell you the world is really shaped somewhat like a ball.
No.
I acknowledge that this court ruled in your favor.
I merely point out that the ruling does not make something a ‘fact’ like the earth being round… apples and oranges.
see Dred Scot v. Sandford.
Did the Earth become flat again after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment?
You are terrible at analogies…
What about my ‘well-regulated militia?’
You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a Progressive could see a role for a citizen militia… which I do… I prefer it to a large standing Army, as did the Founders… that’s what you guys always run to isn’t it?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:13 pmrhf sez:
Yep, you’re a DIME A DOZEN!
jack responds…
And this is the best our poster can do, eh… They just don’t make good ‘net debaters like they use to.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 7:14 pmThey just don’t make good ‘net debaters like they use to.
I’ve had better… oh, you did mean yourself, right?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:16 pmArchie B Says:
So, you’re white?
Are all Americans white, Archie?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:18 pmrhf posts…
You’re PWNED DUM BASS, and now you’re just SQUIRMING IN DENIAL! How does it FEEL to know WHAT A COMPLETE DUM BASS YOU ARE?
Jack replies…
Ahhhh…. this is too beautiful. I am truly in tears from laughing so hard. Poor rhf wants to prove he can still call people nasty names but he’s sooooo traumatized from me making so much fun of his astricks that he has to use a whole new technique without using astricks.
Classic. This is one for the books. Three out of four stars.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 7:19 pmMilitia
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
Snippits not the complete definition. Pick and choose your info. Typical of you rhf.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:19 pmAhhhh…. this is too beautiful. I am truly in tears from laughing so hard. Poor rhf wants to prove he can still call people nasty names but he’s sooooo traumatized from me making so much fun of his astricks that he has to use a whole new technique without using astricks.
Me too jack.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pmNope… They just don’t make good ‘net debaters like they use to.
Any thoughts on that fourteenth amendment thingy forcing us all back onto a ‘flat earth?’
March 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pmArchie B:
March 11th, 2009 at 7:22 pmHow does it feel to have no contro and no ability to challenge those superior to you in the social heirarchy? Shit I am not even the alpha male and I have you so f ucking played that you are scared to even make a move. I can take your females, eat your fruit, and sleep in your nest and you won’t do a god damn thing. You my friend are at the bottom and that seems to be where you are destined to stay. Sucks to have a shitty gene pool doesn’t it? The said part is owning you is so embarassing to me…
belec sez:
but they were racists first and would not be welcome in the Democratic Party today.
Jack replies…
Calling Robert Byrd… calling Sen. Byrd…
March 11th, 2009 at 7:22 pmCalling Robert Byrd… calling Sen. Byrd…
David Duke, phone call for Rep. David Duke…
March 11th, 2009 at 7:25 pmbelac sez:
And I want to hear from Jack, why the Founder’s voted three times to exclude any mention of an individual right to bear arms… I think were both destined to be disappointed.
Jack responds…
Ahhhh poor belac. Still so last century in his thinking. Too bad all nine members of the SCOTUS disagree with him. How fundamentally destructive that must be to his psyche. No wonder he is still stuck with the needle in a worn out groove, repeating the same outworn info over and over.
We won, son. Heller won. Nine justices found individual right in the Second. Seems maybe the FF were much smarter than you in what they wrote.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:27 pmPoor jack burton is sooooo traumatized by my pointing out he doesn’t know how to construct an analogy that he’s given up using them!
Classic… ;-)
March 11th, 2009 at 7:28 pmI bet it’s REALLY EASY for *YOU* to be a bigot!!
Now I have been reading posts from an Anti-Republican bigot most of the afternoon. Look up the definition.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:29 pmWe won, son. Heller won.
Wait- no ‘flat earth’ nonsense?
So your argument is ‘original intent’ except when it conflicts with a SCOTUS ruling you like… in which case it’s, ‘Suck it, Flat Earthers!’
Got it.
Still haven’t addressed my ‘well-regulated militia’ Swiss style but oh well…
March 11th, 2009 at 7:31 pmArchie is googling native american tribes right now to find one that sounds good. I swear the other night he said he was African-American. One thing for sure the dude is a f ucking liar and a toolbag.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:32 pmrhf posts…
So we KNOW archie is too f**king stupid to answer belac’s constitutional inquiry – but jay, jack are you as EQUALLY ignorant and stupid? care to give it a STAB? ;)
jack responds…
The nine justices on the SCOCUTS answered it quite well with Heller… and showed that belac was wrong. I am not responsibe for answering a person who demands from me why I think the earth is round when he knows that it is flat.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:33 pmbelac Says:
Poor jack burton is sooooo traumatized by my pointing out he doesn’t know how to construct an analogy that he’s given up using them!
Classic… ;-)
Not nice belac. What purpose did that post serve. I have a better respect for you than that one.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:33 pmP.S. Jack… ‘last century thinking’ is better than ‘flat earther’ but I used that line when I was dealing with J.Davis and his secession nonsense…
While I appreciate the compliment, find your own posting style, ‘kay?
Oh, is that ridiculous? I swore I heard that somewhere today…
March 11th, 2009 at 7:35 pmrhf posts…
Since the SECOND AMENDMENT speaks only to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA for the purposes of PROTECTING THE STATES, then INDIVIDUAL GUN RIGHTS are not IMPLIED or EXPLICITLY stated! OOPS!
jack responds…
Well…Dear Readers… you can beleive some mope on the net who has a broken caps lock… or you can believe the nine justices on the SCOTUS who ruled that the SA acknowledges an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I know… tough call, eh.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
I bet it’s REALLY EASY for *YOU* to be a bigot!!
Now I have been reading posts from an Anti-Republican bigot most of the afternoon. Look up the definition.
ROTFL!! The REPUBLICAN BIGOTS are ACCUSING OTHERS of BIGOTRY AGAINST THEM for THEIR BIGOTRY!! Ah the IRONY!! ;)
People are who they are. You can’t help your bigotry RHF.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:37 pmMy god!! And have to read through your hundreds of non-sensical postings! No thanks. Well, today you say your native american…PROVE IT NUMBNUTS!!
March 11th, 2009 at 7:37 pmNot nice belac. What purpose did that post serve. I have a better respect for you than that one.
Jay- I refer you to #888…
March 11th, 2009 at 7:37 pmArchie B
March 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pmCan you give us some hints at what the new name will be after I am done with you? “F ucking piece of shit pussy no balls lame ass bastard” has sort of a ring to it doncha think?
The REPUBLICAN BIGOTS
I don’t have a “Bigoted” bone in my body. I don’t hate anyone.
I don’t even hate you RHF.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pmbelac sez:
Then why did the Founder’s vote three times to exclude ‘individual rights’ from the Bill of Rights?
jack replies…
because if I know I am having ice cream for desert… I don’t have to vote for ice cream again. Since the SCOTUS agrees with me and not you, on a nine to zip basis, I’d say the FF didn’t need to vote anything in that was already in.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:41 pmIn a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens took vigorous issue with Justice Scalia’s assertion that it was the Second Amendment that had enshrined the individual right to own a gun.
Now Jack has a ‘noted legal scholar’ who says that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there was an individual right… so he knows it to be true and we’re all stamping our feet and crossing our arms.
You see, this one legal scholars reading of the opening of Steven’s dissension PROVES it!
And there was a second key to the state room!
He PROVED it with geometric logic!
March 11th, 2009 at 7:42 pmrhf rants…
GUNS are EASY for P*SSIES like you to MASS MURDER WITH. It’s a LOT HARDER when you have to get IN SOMEONE’S FACE! DUM BASS MORON!
jack replies…
Are you speaking as an expert witness on murder here? I would like to know your qualifications.
And you do know, don’t you, that the largest single mass murdered in the history of the country did his deed with a gallon can of gas.
You didn’t know that? I thought you were an expert witness?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:45 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
People are who they are. You can’t help your bigotry RHF.
IS THAT how you JUSTIFY YOUR BIGOTRY, it CAN’T BE HELPED? ROTFL!
I don’t need to justify anything that I am not. How do you justify your bigotry? You do all the name calling and vulgarity here. You seem consumed by it. Not me.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:45 pmI’d say the FF didn’t need to vote anything in that was already in.
I’d say the text of the proposed addition…“[T]hat the said Constitution
never be construed to authorize Congress to . . . prevent
the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,
from keeping their own arms.”
means that they thought that it COULD be construed that way in it’s current form.
And the voting down of that ‘order of Ice Cream’ may mean that some may have never meant to order ‘Ice Cream’ in the first place… and felt the order was quite clear… what with ‘well-regulated militia’ and what not.
Still haven’t dealt with the regulation issue…
March 11th, 2009 at 7:46 pmrhf rants…
ROTFL! FLAT EARTH POLICY is one based in an ABSENCE OF FACT. You know like YOUR OPINION that the SECOND AMENDMENT’S PARTICULAR WORDS say IS INCORRECT! ;)
Jack responds…
You mean my opinion that the nine justices of the SCOTUS agreed with in Heller? That opinion?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:47 pmI’d say the FF didn’t need to vote anything in that was already in.
Oh, and Jack?
They did vote… and they voted to keep that out.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:47 pmArchie how does it make you feel when I make you lick it up after I am done with those family members we spoke of?
I told you all that I can say anything no matter how tasteless.
Archie B knows whose his daddy. He won’t do anything. Just slap his punk ass all over the place. He won’t do anything but fester inside. I realize it is tragic but it isn’t my problem that he is what he is…Sad I admit but he knows how to make it stop. He just isn’t man enough!
March 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pmYou mean my opinion that the nine justices of the SCOTUS agreed with in Heller? That opinion?
Yes, that one.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pmThe nine justices who agreed 5 to 4…
What tribe are you from Arch or is being Native American just another lie from you?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:50 pmblezx ses:
Takes a little mental gymnastics, don’t it?
jack responds…
Eight justices agreed with him. And when I move to Switzerland I’ll become more concerned about their treatment of firearms. At this point I have no more care about their thoughts than I do the Finnish, the Belizeans, the Polish, or the Botswainians.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
So jack, would that be “District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290? 5-4
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Glad I could help belac, jack is PWNED again! ;)
Don’t these guys EVER get TIRED of being shown what IDIOTS THEY ARE? ;)
They moved on from that two hours ago. You should go back and read what was said.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:54 pmEight justices agreed with him. And when I move to Switzerland I’ll become more concerned about their treatment of firearms. At this point I have no more care about their thoughts than I do the Finnish, the Belizeans, the Polish, or the Botswainians.
Again… no. 5 to 4.
An we’re talking about this country and how to make it better… you can do the most amazing mental back-flips… is this little logical leap too far for you?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:55 pmRiiight. The only tribe you belong to is the GOP f uck tard tribe.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:55 pmrhf sez:
What a FLAT EARTH MORON!
Jack sez:
Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge to the world that I am such a better poster than you that you think the best way to catch up to me is to borrow and use my technique.
It is not often that someone of your demeanor is so willing to admit to being an inferior poster and needing to use someone elses superior style. But… as always… the imitator at the end of the day is just a poor second best to the Master. But thanks for the compliment.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:58 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
They moved on from that two hours ago. You should go back and read what was said.
Yet just a FEW POSTS AGO, the SPECIFIC CASE was CITED!! ROTFL! You’re as ILLITERATE as Archie is HYPOCRITICAL and DUMB! ;)
Like I said. It was discussed two hours ago in length. You should go read about it.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:59 pmFrom your favorite Law.com, Jack.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422582170
Hmm, strange- I heard they all agreed.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:59 pmBut thanks for the compliment.
Did the earth become flat upon the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, jack?
You keep skipping over that little logical fallacy…
March 11th, 2009 at 8:01 pmbelac seZ:
I merely point out that the ruling does not make something a ‘fact’ like the earth being round… apples and oranges.
see Dred Scot v. Sandford.
jack responds…
Factual enough for me…
bleac sez:
You are terrible at analogies…
Jack respopnds
I’m always happy to let the Dear Readers judge that…
belac seZ:
What about my ‘well-regulated militia?’
You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a Progressive could see a role for a citizen militia… which I do… I prefer it to a large standing Army, as did the Founders… that’s what you guys always run to isn’t it?
Jack responds…
There you are again with your attempted strawman argument. Since you’ve never, ever once since I came on made any such argument for the role of the militia you can not honestly in any way post what I think about your view.
Can you?
And you don’t know what I prefer, either. Do you?
But one of us posted the actual, legal, definition of the milita and it was not you doing the posting, eh.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:02 pmbelac the ruling was long and complicated. It touched on many aspects of the citizens right to keep and bear arms. In many instances they all agreed. One was the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. That was unanimously agreed on and stated so. You need to read the complete decision and not just pick and choose what serves to make your point.
The 5 to 4 ruling was on the DC gun Laws which was the reason the Supreme Court was in session.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:04 pmPROJECT MUCH? Poor TARD so DESPERATE to FEEL SUPERIOR in the SMACKDOWN OF DEFEAT! RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! I D@UCHE YOU and all you can do is THIS PATHETIC POST? ROTFL! Talk about LOSER, you’re the DEFINITION!! ROTFL!! POOR LITTLE THING, better luck NEXT TIME! You shouldn’t PICK A TOPIC you CLEARLY no SO LITTLE ABOUT! Your FIRST TIME OUT you OVERREACHED like any CHILD WOULD! ;)
Of course your opinions come from the toilet as is evident in your language.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:05 pmrtf rants…
Your FIRST TIME OUT you OVERREACHED like any CHILD WOULD! ;)
Jack responds…
And you are the one attempting to use my style of posting, eh. Perhaps you can tell us all if that is a correct statement.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 8:05 pmWe already HAVE THAT, it’s called the NATIONAL GUARD – OOPS! And ALL FOUR JUSTICES that aren’t FEDERALISTS DISHONEST *HACKS* AGREE as does THE DICTIONARY!!! OOPS~!! ;)
What National Guard?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pmArchie:
March 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pmWe all know how this is eating away at you. I am smarter than you. Better educated than you. Way more handsome than you and on top of it all you have nowhere to turn for help as you lack any support in your community. Even total losers can muster a buddy to try and defend them when they are too weak and inferior to do it themselves. I can make you eat my own shit and you can do nothing about it and you will do it because you are too scared and confused not to. This is so pitiful. How can you live with yourself.
rfh sez…
You can HAVE YOUR OWN OPINION, but not your own FACTS! ;)
Jack responds…
Fact: My caps lock works. I can turn it both on and off.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pmAnd you don’t know what I prefer, either. Do you?
NO!
You won’t say… strange!
You posted the definition of militia… hmm, doesn’t conflict with anything I’ve posted, does it?
Any male aged 17 to 45 who is not in the National Guard is part of the ‘unorganized militia’
How does this conflict with my desire for a right to keep and bear arms in a ‘well-regulated militia’
Hmm?
oh and this…
I merely point out that the ruling does not make something a ‘fact’ like the earth being round… apples and oranges.
see Dred Scot v. Sandford.
jack responds…
Factual enough for me…
Dred Scot is factual to you?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pmYou need to read the complete decision and not just pick and choose what serves to make your point.
Yeah… that’s what I’ve been tellin’ ya.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:11 pmrjf sez:
ROTFL! jack is so TRAUMATIZED by PWNING HIMSELF all he can DO IS DEFLECT! CLASSIC LOSER POST!! ROTFL! ;)
jack responds…
Notice Dear Readers, how worked up rhf gets when he is on the wrong side. He knows he changed his posting style just because of me… and when it is pointed out he has no choice except to go ballistic hoping that you won’t notice the truth of my postings.
:-)
March 11th, 2009 at 8:11 pmbelec sez:
Any thoughts on that fourteenth amendment thingy forcing us all back onto a ‘flat earth?’
jack recommends…
Might want to lay off the posting for a while. YOu’re beginning to make even less sense. I have no clue as to what you are attempting to communicate.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:14 pmjack- here’s what the legal scholars over at law.com write…
March 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
belec sez:
David Duke, phone call for Rep. David Duke…
jack responds…
Nice try but people who know the truth know that Duke was thrown out of the Pubbies and Bryd is the senior Dim senator.
Perhaps you see that as the same… but I think the Dear Readers really understand the difference. Which squeezed your little remaining crediblity into a smaller box.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
What National Guard?
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN that doesn’t know about the NATIONAL GUARD! It’s KATRINA INCOMPETENCE all OVER AGAIN!! ROTFL!!
Well why don’t you tell me about the national guard that was around when the 2 nd amendment was written. You keep saying that a “Well Regulated Militia” is the National guard. In 1789 there was no National Guard. All there was were citizens who would be called up in case of a national emergency. They were also required to bring their own gun. You should read what a Militia consists of. No, I know you won’t. It doesn’t support your opinion. We are talking about the 2nd amendment when it was written right?
Or are you talking about what you are trying to turn it into today.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:20 pmMight want to lay off the posting for a while. YOu’re beginning to make even less sense. I have no clue as to what you are attempting to communicate.
Let me lay it out for ya, I know you need your hand held.
Dred Scott established that slaves and their descendants were not and could never be citizens under the Constitution… suck it all you anti-slavery Flat Earthers, huh?
The SCOTUS has RULED!
March 11th, 2009 at 8:21 pmThank you for posting the Heller pdf where the Dear Readers can see quite well for themselves without any filter that the four justices who upheld the DC law also uphead the concept of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:23 pmBye for now, kids. It’s been fun but I know you all have your jr. high homework to get started on. Meanwhile, I’ve got adult stuff to take care of.
Hope your teachers grade on a curve nowadays cause back in the day when I was in jr. high like you guys they were pretty tough on us using logic and thinking things through.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pmWe are talking about the 2nd amendment when it was written right?
Or are you talking about what you are trying to turn it into today.
Are we?
jack says that we should ignore the three times they voted against including an individual right ’cause they thought they’d spelled it out enough… I’m skeptical… but that’s the problem with original intent, isn’t it? You can never be sure exactly what the Founders meant when they wrote it… only how it’s been understood…
So either we’re back to that Judicial Activist Scalia again or we can move forward and talk about how to regulate that militia…
March 11th, 2009 at 8:25 pmOkay bye Jack!
Read the whole decision, okay?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pmHope your teachers grade on a curve nowadays cause back in the day when I was in jr. high like you guys they were pretty tough on us using logic and thinking things through.
I guess those teachers weren’t so hard on the punctuation, huh?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
ROTFL! What a DUM BASS STATEMENT! So YOU ARE ACTUALLY SAYING that if A *SPECIFIC* WELL REGULATED MILITIA didn’t exist then, it isn’t a WELL REGULATED MILITIA? ROTFL! What DUM BASS MORONIC ARGUMENT! The NATIONAL GUARD is the VERY EXPRESSION of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA – DUM BASS! The fact that it DIDN’T EXIST THEN doesn’t MATTER, it QUALIFIES!
jay Says:
Or are you talking about what you are trying to turn it into today.
It STILL IS a MILITIA – DUM BASS!
With a National army in existence then why would you even mention a Militia?
Could it be because they were afraid of the Government getting too large and oppressive. The fact that the Founders wanted it’s citizens to have firearms is because they didn’t want the Government to be the only ones with firearms. It was discussed many time between 1776 and 1789.
Thomas Jefferson wrote many papers on the problem of the government getting too much power. So did Benjamin Franklin.
It’s no different today. There may become a time when a citizen army might have to be called up to stabilize the country. Just as was expressed during the writing of the Constitution and the amendments to the constitution. Of course you could never see something like that ever happening but it was a danger in the past. It could also be a danger in the future.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson
You go around calling people.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:38 pmbelac Says:
Hope your teachers grade on a curve nowadays cause back in the day when I was in jr. high like you guys they were pretty tough on us using logic and thinking things through.
I guess those teachers weren’t so hard on the punctuation, huh?
You’re not that good at it belac and neither am I. RHF is atrocious at it and his spelling also. You shouldn’t throw stones belac.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pmI can SAFELY SAY I KNEW MORE in FIRST GRADE than JACK EVER WILL! ;)
When you get to the second grade let me know.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:44 pmYou’re not that good at it belac and neither am I. RHF is atrocious at it and his spelling also. You shouldn’t throw stones belac.
Agreed… that’s all I was pointing out, jay.
Look at the post I’m responding too… stones, indeed.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pmLook at the post I’m responding too… stones, indeed.
An observation belac. That’s all, one friend to another. Well with all the hours we spend together I kinda think of you as a friend in a sea of danger. ????????? We do manage to talk together with civility any way.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pmWe do manage to talk together with civility any way.
I’m glad of that, anyway.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:57 pmYou just don’t have the mentality to understand what you’re reading do you?
UH, because THE CONSTITUTION MENTIONS IT – MORON? In the CONTEXT of BEARING ARMS? Did you EVEN READ ANY of this THREAT YOU F**KING IDIOT?
My point is why even mention it in the Constitution if you already have a standing army???
The PRIVATE CITIZEN language was ALREADY IN EXISTENCE in state CONSTITUTIONS and was DISCARDED for this. So NOPE, that was NOT What the SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ABOUT! I SUGGEST you F**KING READ the THREAD and the LINK I *KINDLY* pointed out you should READ before OPENING YOUR IGNORANT MOUTH ON THE SUBJECT!
I have a copy of the document. I don’t need a URL.
You TARDS are ALL ALIKE! You think an UNEDUCATED OPINION is worth ANYTHING AT ALL!
All opinions that don’t agree with you are so called “Uneducated”. I know they are worthless to you. It’s awfully dark inside a closed mind. This next statement from you proves that.
YEAH it’s CALLED THE GOP, GEORGE BUSH and VIOLENT SH*THEADS like YOU!
March 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Look at the post I’m responding too… stones, indeed.
An observation belac. That’s all, one friend to another. Well with all the hours we spend together I kinda think of you as a friend in a sea of danger. ????????? We do manage to talk together with civility any way.
YOU’RE AN IGNORANT LIAR I see no reason to be FAKE and CIVIL to a FREAK LIKE YOU! F**K OFF you PIECE OF SH*T LIAR!
Was this post to you? What is your problem? Take a chill pill.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:06 pmPERHAPS you should READ THE COURT CASE? As it SPEAKS DIRECTLY to this?
I’m talking about the Constitution when it was written and you’re talking about a court case.
Can’t you read and if you can’t then you shouldn’t be here.
Your hate is all consuming. It’s clouding your mind.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:12 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Let me PUT THIS ANOTHER WAY jay the j*ck*ss.
Standing armies are PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS, who are FULL TIME and who are PAID and HOUSED in a MILITARY BARRACKS. That’s GREAT for SOME THINGS. However LARGE DISASTERS and/or ISSUES can require QUICKER, LOCAL mobilization. Militia was the ORIGINAL MODEL of *PROFESSIONAL* soldiering for MUCH of the GREEK WORLD and STILL UNDERPINS disaster and unexpected need for defense and dealing with UNREST. They aren’t for CREATING UNREST which is what YOU and NORRIS and the rest of your TEXAS TALIBAN HILLBILLIES *BELIEVE* a militia is for!
MOST COUNTRIES have both a FULL TIME and MILITIA FORCE that is organized by the government for THIS REASON – MORON!
And when it is mentioned in the Constitution they were referring to the American Citizen that would be called up in the event of a national disaster or uprising by any force including a military take over. That is why they wanted the American Citizen to keep and bear arms. You can’t ask an opposing force to give you a gun, now can you?
Who’s the moron who doesn’t see the reason they purposely included an amendment that would allow the citizens of this country to stand up for the Nation when called on to do so.
The Chuck Norris thing is just some of your hate poking through. OBTW I don’t know Chuck Norris.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pmWhat “Unrest” am I causing? You seem to be the one with all the hate, not me.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:21 pmNo, a WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA is in the CONSTITUTION, not the AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN DUM BASS! That’s EXACTLY what the NATIONAL GUARD DOES YOU IGNORANT RUBE! READ THE F**KING COURT CASE!
There was no such court case when the amendment was written.
Any group of citizens who meet and train are considered well regulated. It doesn’t say it has to be well regulated by the Federal Government does it?
You’re the rube Pal for trying to force others to think as you do. You are the one who is putting this country in danger when you spread your hate. Hate is all consuming. You need some help Pal.
I’m mor a skeered of yu than I’m a skeered of Chuck.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Crickets…
Come on JAY just ADMIT YOU LIED about me, or POST THE EVIDENCE! Don’t be such a p*ssy!
I lied about you??????? I have no idea what you’re talking about. “Crickets”????????????? You have lost it.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:40 pmWhat’s an OOZIE?
March 11th, 2009 at 9:59 pmtoonces Says:
What’s an OOZIE?
Best to ask RHF. Only he knows what he’s talking about.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:04 pmArchie B Says:
“I will line by line veto all earmarks when I am president!” bho
Good start, lying pos. There was only 9000 in the latest bill! LOL!
You were expecting something else?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:14 pmSo Archie. I was wondering how you would feel if we opened up a discussion as to how you think this will end? The way I see it you are too shell shocked to respond so I was figuring we would just open it up to everyone. I am willing to start the betting at 10 bucks that you go by the wayside and pussy out to a new name
March 11th, 2009 at 10:21 pmdbadass Says:
So Archie. I was wondering how you would feel if we opened up a discussion as to how you think this will end? The way I see it you are too shell shocked to respond so I was figuring we would just open it up to everyone. I am willing to start the betting at 10 bucks that you go by the wayside and pussy out to a new name
You may not be around that long db. Just a guess.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:33 pmSAYS the T*RD who’s TRYING TO HAVE GUNS!!! Your PROJECTION is TYPICAL of the WINGNUT TERRORISTS…
I have the guns. I spent 5 years active duty. 2 tours in combat. 15 years in the Army reserve. How about you?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:44 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Crickets jay…
If you say so????????
Well how about you. Where did you serve?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:46 pmYou’re JUST THE KIND OF LUNATIC with a GUN that NORRIS WANTS – have you JOINED UP YET? Do you consider our CONSTITUTION to be TOILET PAPER like HE DOES? Tell me p*ssy, is THAT what YOU BELIEVE?
I’m a citizen who served his country for 20 years. How about you?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:48 pmDidn’t you HEAR, when jay served, there was a DRAFT and YOU HAD TO HAVE an AN*L CYST like RUSH to get out of it…
YUP. There was a draft but I volunteered. 5 years active duty and 15 year in the Army Reserve.
Where did you serve. Can’t answer that one can you?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:51 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says: RHF is atrocious at it and his spelling also.
So TELL ME JAY, what BAD SPELLING do I HAVE? I can tell YOU you’re a f**king IDIOT that doesn’t even know what a MILITIA IS! So much for having SERVED in the MILITARY! Did you MISS THAT in BASIC – *SSH*LE?
You can’t get through a post without using ***** to fill out your words.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
YUP. There was a draft but I volunteered. 5 years active duty and 15 year in the Army Reserve.
LIKE I SAID – DESPERATE TIMES and an *ssh*le like YOU without a MORAL COMPASS that would KILL ANYONE is EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING ASKED FOR…
jay Says:
Where did you serve. Can’t answer that one can you?
UNLIKE YOU, I don’t need to THROW OUT MILITARY SERVICE to JUSTIFY my opinions! YOU’RE too much of a p*ssy to STAND ON YOUR OWN, you have to JUSTIFY IT with saying you SERVED. Yet when PEOPLE who DID SERVE like Cleland or Kerry come into the picture you pick a draft dodging p*ssy instead… So WHAT RELEVANCE does SERVICE HAVE in YOUR BOOK – P*ssy? Since you seem to CARE SO LITTLE for the CONSTITUTION that you SUPPOSEDLY SERVED TO PROTECT? Tell me that JUNIOR?
And you served where? I love the Constitution unlike you. I also love my country. I also have respect for others unlike you. I have better manners unlike you. I can post without using *** to fill in my words unlike you.
So you didn’t serve but you put down people who did. Are you one of those who spat at returning soldiers or maybe a “phony soldiers”?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:00 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Plus jay, I frankly don’t believe you. I believe your a complete lying sack of p*ssy sh!t!
So I should care what you think. You of all people must know by now what I think of you and people like you. You’re full of hate. You are what you accuse others of being.
So you didn’t serve. Maybe you should have.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pmNO JAY it doesn’t permit CITIZENS it permits MILITIA! The rights of INDIVIDUALS to BEAR GUNS for HUNTING and their own “PERSONAL” protection existed in state constitution but was REJECTED in the FEDERAL ONE.
Who do you think make up a militia, warthogs or maybe raccoons?
What nonsense.
The second amendment: 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.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:11 pmKinda says it all to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:11 pmArchie B Says:
Stock in General Electric, once one of the world’s most respected companies, has suffered a historic 69% nose dive in the past six months that no one publicly predicted.
With the possible exception of Bill O’Reilly.
The host of Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” has been advising his sizable audience — ad nauseam — to dump GE shares. In fact, even as stockpickers on CNBC, a GE asset, were recommending GE stock, O’Reilly was saying sell, sell, sell!
It’s no secret that O’Reilly has been using his top-rated show in a feud with NBC Universal, especially MSNBC, for years.
When he’s being kind, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann will refer to O’Reilly as “Billo” or compare him to Ted Baxter. But oftentimes it’s something more seething, like “the Sisyphus of morons” or, on several occasions, “the worst person in the world.”
Olbermann/msnbc/ge=circling the drain about to go down the same sewer pipe with rhf! LOL!
I’m sure all 20 of Keith’s viewers enjoy his comedy show.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:13 pmPUTTING WORDS in OTHERS MOUTHS – very HONORABLE OF YOU! The SPAT at SOLDIERS is a LONG DEBUNKED MYTH – you LYING MORON TERRORIST *SSHOLES are more ANNOYING by the DAY! When are you JOINING CHUCKIE AGAIN? Or have you ALREADY?
Long debunked myth??? December 24th 1968 around 3 pm L A Airport.
Debunked by whom??????
March 11th, 2009 at 11:16 pmA nice thick lugy on my uniform.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:17 pmjay Says:
The second amendment: 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.
So DO YOU *CURRENTLY* belong to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA – if NOT then your GUN is NOT A RIGHT – get it MORON?
Pay special attention to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” part.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:19 pmUse the Google
March 11th, 2009 at 11:21 pmGun show uzi
Your arguments against tougher regulation and claims of a specific right?
One word
Pitiful
republicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Long debunked myth??? December 24th 1968 around 3 pm L A Airport.
Debunked by whom??????
ROTFL!! Everyone you F**KING LIAR!
So wait, YOU’RE SAYING *ONE* case happened? WOW, it’s a CONSPIRACY!!! One CRAZY PERSON makes for a WHOLE GENERATION OF *HATERS*!!!! You’re as MUCH of a PARANOID PSYCHO as ARCHIE IS! You SURE you’re not just a different sock puppet?
One of your lovely peace and love friends spat on me.
Once is enough for me. The second time it happened in Boston I laid the peace loving liberal on his rear end.
You’re the paranoid one as is evident in your post.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:24 pmDo you have proof of that, jay? You laying a liberal that is?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:27 pmEVERY CABLE SHOW COMBINED doesn’t reach as many people as an EVENING NEWS BROADCAST. RUSH doesn’t even reach the ENTIRE HARD CORE PARTISAN REPUBLICAN BASE. You PEOPLE are such FOOLS!
I don’t know about that. He’s been on the radio for 20 years and has a 40 million dollar contract. I wonder how much “The Head” and his girlfriend “The Neck” make.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:27 pmSORRY but I don’t believe you. You’ve ALREADY SHOWN you would LIE ABOUT ME, why wouldn’t LIE ABOUT THIS? NOPE you HAVE NO HONOR you ARE A LIAR!
And what lie have I told about you?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:28 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
So jay, those returning soldiers that went and HIT HIPPIES, I suppose YOU CONDONE THAT? ;
The ones that spit on them, you bet.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:29 pm#
#
republicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Long debunked myth??? December 24th 1968 around 3 pm L A Airport.
Debunked by whom??????
One of your lovely peace and love friends spat on me.
SORRY but I don’t believe you. You’ve ALREADY SHOWN you would LIE ABOUT ME, why wouldn’t LIE ABOUT THIS? NOPE you HAVE NO HONOR you ARE A LIAR!
jay Says:
Once is enough for me. The second time it happened in Boston I laid the peace loving liberal on his rear end.
ALSO don’t BELIEVE YOU.
jay Says:
You’re the paranoid one as is evident in your post.
Says the RANDOM ANON TROLL posting LIES.
I don’t care what you believe. Why should I? Your a vulgar person with no respect for others.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:32 pmHaving served seven years in the guard, called up for Desert Storm,and having been raised by a gunsmith, I consider myself qualified to comment. Please look at the data for gun deaths over the last four decades.If broken down by gun type, guns in the assault weapons class are resposible for very few statistically. What is even more telling is that the smallest,lowest power round available is responsible for the most deaths- the 25 auto. These small guns are easily hidden in a coat or pants pocket and have just enough power to penetrate the skull and bounce around inside. The deaths by firearms for every year I have seen contain at least 50% by suicide. The Guard at one time was a militia, but do to funding issues now comprises more than 60% of the forces to be used in any conflict of size and your state cannot refuse to deploy them when called up by the Feds.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:32 pmCars are drive by choice, and the right to drive has no constitutional protections. Arguing the ” Well Regulated” part of the ammendment if you want, but with the recent court decision that held guns are for self-defence, it just smacks of the same refusal to accept the law that the opposition shows toward Roe-Wade. There was no measureable reduction in the rate of use of assault weapons in crimes when the ban was in place.
As to passing more gun laws, the opposition is waiting for us to be that stupid. No other topic energizes their base more, not even abortion. If you don’t think so, go back and watch Bill Clintons comments about what a price the party paid for the Assault Weapons Ban.
jay, do you remember a young lady who claimed she had an “O” carved in her face?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:33 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Jay when someone like YOU LIES about MY POSTS, you have NO CREDIBILITY.
You’re probably like the NUTJOB that claimed people were spitting on him a few years back! He was a complete lying moron, just like YOU with SERIOUS MENTAL PROBLEMS!
I lied about you and your posts. Where?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:33 pmalpuz3 Says:
jay, do you remember a young lady who claimed she had an “O” carved in her face?
Hi there Trajan. Sorry but can’t say I do.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:34 pmHave I gotten under your skin, jay..?
you can’t recall?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pmYeah because GETTING BEAT UP is the same as getting SPIT ON in the eyes of a CON! What about all of the hippies just MINDING THEIR BUSINESS that were CONSTANTLY ATTACKED in the HAIGHT and ELSEWHERE? You gonna say THEY DESERVED IT because *SOMEONE* spit on you? You’re sound more and more like al qaeda by the minute – junior! LYING and JUSTIFYING VIOLENCE…
If you spit on someone today it is considered an assault and you can be prosecuted for it.
What about all of the hippies just MINDING THEIR BUSINESS that were CONSTANTLY ATTACKED in the HAIGHT and ELSEWHERE? You gonna say THEY DESERVED IT because *SOMEONE* spit on you?
Of course not. That has nothing to do with what happened to me. Why would I say it would be OK by me. Boy you’re reaching now.
Look, if you aren’t going to be intelligent in your posts to me then post to someone else. Your stupidity is just too far reaching and makes no sense to a normal thinking person.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:39 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
alpuz3, a VET did the same thing during the Iraq conflict. Went around claiming people were spitting at him. Too bad he did it in front of cameras that documented he was a psycho LIAR like jay is!
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. So you say. It has nothing to do with what happened to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:40 pmRHF, yes… as did the good rev that jay/archie quoted earlier.
C’mon. jay… you have to convince me that you’re not a despicable liar with a wacky right wing agenda.
The burden of proof is on you…
March 11th, 2009 at 11:44 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says: RHF is atrocious at it and his spelling also.
So JAY, you LIED and said I had atrocious spelling. Care to POINT OUT WHERE?
Sure.
ROTFL!! Everyone you F**KING LIAR!
That’s what a LINK to an UNKNOWN WEBSITE posted by an UNKNOWN TROLL is called – DUM BASS! ;)
ROTFL!! Yeah SURE!! What a DUM BASS UNSUBSTANTIATED IGNORANT LIE as USUAL!
Well to BEGIN WITH a RACE WAR was NOT a LIBERAL POSITION. Second of all what you are DESCRIBING is an ANARCHIST not a LIBERAL – you IGNORANT PIECE OF SH*T MORON!
Neither was a SERIAL KILLER you IGNORANT JACK*SS!
FUNNY how WELL REGULATED MILITIA describes the NATIONAL GUARD VERY WELL! Yeah, they ALSO saw RELIGIOUS F**KING IDIOTS like YOU trying to be the TEXAS TALIBAN! Those FOUNDING FATHERS were a lot SMARTER than a DUM BASS HILLBILLY LIKE YOU! ;
SAYS the pitiful c*nt that doesn’t own a DICTIONARY! ;)
EXCESSIVE D*CKISHNESS, a GRASPING sense of SELF SUPERIORITY grounded in a DEEP SEATED INSECURITY brought on by CHILDHOOD NEGLECT and BAD PARENTING resulting in a NEED to DEMONSTRATE SUPERIORITY to THEMSELVES through the REJECTION OF REALITY and formation of a COGNITIVE DISSONANCE that PRECLUDES them facing their OWN FEARS about a LACK OF SELF WORTH. All while being an evasive, dishonest, pedantic and passive aggressive d!ckhead. Yep, you’re a DIME A DOZEN! The GOP FEEDS on your PERSONAL INSECURITIES and you are HAPPY to BE THEIR USEFUL IDIOT! ;)
YEAH WELL, the GERMANS were ALSO NAZIS after this point, so are the GERMANS ALL STILL NAZIs? In the MEAN TIME the GOP HAS BECOME A GROUP OF RACIST PIGS and the DEMOCRATS elected a BLACK MAN TO BE PRESIDENT! Only a F**KING RACIST like YOU would DARE claim the DEMOCRATS are the RACIST ONES!! ROTFL! You’re PSYCHOTICALLY DISTURBED!
Want more?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:59 pmWTF, jay?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:02 amSURE IT DOES! You’re asking for a SPECIAL CLASS and that YOU should be TREATED SPECIAL. I’m POINTING OUT you’re being a CHILDISH F**KER.
Sorry Pall but it’s late. I have a feeling that you won’t be around much longer here. At least under your current name.
Make up a better on next time. Oh, go take your meds.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:02 amSee ya. Damn sure wouldn’t want to be ya.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:03 amI’m going to quote that… just in case you come back, jay.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:07 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Want more?
USING *’s on CURSE WORDS is BAD SPELLING TO YOU? ROTFL!! You TRULY ARE AN IDIOT!!
If you can’t spell it then it’s not spelled right. Why do you need curse words anyway except to hide the lack of understanding or some sort of Psycho problem. I try never to use them. It’s a sign of week character.
Poor upbringing. See ya Pal.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:07 amI have been posting the SAME WAY under the SAME NAME on THIS SITE for MONTHS
Not for long.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:08 amUSING *’s on CURSE WORDS is BAD SPELLING TO YOU? ROTFL!! You TRULY ARE AN IDIOT!!
March 12th, 2009 at 12:10 amjay Says:
I have been posting the SAME WAY under the SAME NAME on THIS SITE for MONTHS
Not for long.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:10 am
ROTFL! Yeah, because YOU are the KING of THE BLOG! ROTFL!
We shall see.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:11 am11 people died yesterday in Alabama in a shooting spree:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29623587
March 12th, 2009 at 12:13 amWhat happened here?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:14 amNot a whole lot. fred, do you know jay? Do you know about his magic script? jay can log into TP under multiple names in a click of his mouse. fred, how do you feel about that?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:18 amalpuz3 Says:
fred garvin Says:
Not a whole lot. fred, do you know jay? Do you know about his magic script? jay can log into TP under multiple names in a click of his mouse. fred, how do you feel about that?
I only have one name unlike you Trajan. Oh RHF you met your match today. You just can’t admit it. It’s your ego that gets in your way.
Your a bitter hateful person. I don’t hate you for it though. I feel sorry for you. Really.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:23 amThank you.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:26 amjay, you have lost all control. You never really had any to begin with, but what little you have/had imagined…
It’s gone.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:31 amWhat can we expect from someone that whines about being spit on? What a delusional little f**ker…
What can we expect from someone who just whines all day about Republicans. His hate is all consuming. Someone tell him that the Dems won the election.
He’ll be in shock after the next election in two years though. Things are changing.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:52 amwhy’s that, jay?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:59 amheh… Hendler went rogue? … that rascal.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:08 ampeeps?
do you be da man, fred?
…whatever the hell that means.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:19 amThe exclamation point works for you, fred.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:21 amYou two sure do like a good pi**ing match. I went to bed and got up and you were still at it. Small wonder that the Russians think were headed into civil war. If I was Russian and I had read what you two had written, I’d put the Kremlin on alert, after taking something to ease the headache. Goodnight to both of you, sleep well. The good thing about this country is that we can always start again tommorow.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:36 amIt’s all going to start with The Democrats losing seats in the House and Senate. It won’t be a landslide, just a trickle at first. Then on to the Presidential election. We have plenty of time and will be patient.
Once the people start to pay for this Spending Spree and see what it really cost and realize that it isn’t helping then it will change.
The increase in the gas tax. property taxes, food prices, carbon tax and all the little taxes that will be added is going to change minds.
There are Democrats in the House (about 40) that don’t like what they are seeing already. Nancy Pelosi has lost all respect in the country, Harry Reid will lose in his state also.
To Quote Rachel Maddow “The Neck”, “YUP”
March 12th, 2009 at 9:00 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
“Do you think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?”
Right 88% 2/24/09
SO MUCH for how AMERICA FEELS about OBAMA’S DIRECTION!! ROTFL! ;)
Come on FRED are you REALLY gonna play this LITTLE GAME OF LIES, I can KEEP POSTING! ;)
Polls don’t mean a thing this early in the game but you go on believing in them.
When the taxes hit the polls will change. We have plenty of time. It will be the people who will decide this one. Even acorn won’t be able to fix the next two elections like they did this past one. You see the Blacks will be asked to pay up also.
Only those committed to Obie the Messiah will be left to kiss his feet. When Obie fails to woo them with his rhetoric then they will leave also. It wasn’t that close the first time around. 46 to 54.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:06 amMaybe Obie will succeed and the country will turn socialist.
RHF, you keep up what your doing though. It’s hateful people like you who will champion our cause. The GOP isn’t going anywhere soon. We have time on our side. You have whiners like rhf.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:13 amIt will only take 7% of the undecided vote to put an end to Obies rein. That’s all. We have time.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pmHey, what do you think of your Democratic friend Maddoff going to jail?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pmYou know jay calling an immensely popular president “the messiah” and a “communist”
It was your Liberal friends that called him the Messiah, remember?
I never called him a “Communist” but you do have a problem with the English language don’t you?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pmAll it will take is 7% of the undecided vote and the way they will be hit by the new tax increases that will be easy to get. Time will tell after all we have plenty of time. It won’t happen right away but it will happen.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pmHey, no comment on your pal Maddoff going to jail huh.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pmBut that’s EXACTLY what he was called on FOX NEWS yesterday. What do you THINK about THAT?
I’m not Fox news and you said I called him a “Communist”. Again you don’t understand English do you?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
You know jay, Clinton RAISED TAXES and SAILED to a second victory even as the GOP was RISING – OOPS! Now the GOP is SINKING LIKE A STONE! I’m SO GLAD you have SO MUCH HOPE FOR FAILURE of our COUNTRY to COMFORT YOU! ;)
Clinton is gone and you did lose the Presidency for 8 years didn’t you? You are right in one thing though, we do have a Clinton 3rd term right now. Everyone except Bill himself.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:15 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Hey, what do you think of your Democratic friend Maddoff going to jail?
He SHOULD go to jail, and EVERY CONSERVATIVE that BLOCKED the REGULATION and OVERSIGHT that MADE THIS POSSIBLE should GO TO JAIL AS ACCOMPLICES! Care to SHARE HIS CELL? ;)
But, But he was your man. One of your fold.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pmRight now rhf is searching the internet trying to prove that Maddoff wasn’t a Democrat.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
So what happened jay, *I* am still here DESPITE your THREATS to the contrary? P*ssy much? ;)
Couldn’t find it huh.
I never threatened anyone. What paranoia will do to some people.
Hey, my name is Jay, what’s yours?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Right now rhf is searching the internet trying to prove that Maddoff wasn’t a Democrat.
Not at all jay, he was both a well known democrat and someone that the entire jewish community of the country trusted. He was also a sociopath who has bilked the wealth of an entire generation of american jews and jewish charities. The whole thing is very sad for everyone. Just imagine how much of that could have been avoided if the GOP hadn’t blocked proper SEC funding and regulations…
But, But, he was one of yours. A kindly Liberal Democrat wasn’t he. No major headlines here on what a crook he was.
Oh I forgot you only attack Republicans with your hate. So much for your self righteous posts.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pmBut the EXCEPTION doesn’t PROVE THE RULE. You seem to always MISS that concept! ;)
Only when you have to deal with Democrats. Republicans are a different story, right?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:49 pmMy name is Jay. What’s yours?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pmNot at all, I said he should go to jail along with ANYONE THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE, you’re just TOO ILLITERATE to UNDERSTAND! ;)
I understand just fine. You condemn all Republicans but when it come to Democrats “The exception doesn’t prove the rule”.
I understand. BTW my name is Jay what’s yours?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
My name is Jay. What’s yours?
Your NAME is DUM BASS, mine is DEFEATER of DUM BASS! ;)
And there you have it.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Come on jay, explain the how SOCIALISM *DIFFERS* from COMMUNISM? And please EXPLAIN *EXACTLY* which portions of OBAMA’S PLATFORM are SOCIALIST? Still WAITING!!! What’s wrong, GOOGLE running SLOW FOR YOU, or is DRUDGE DOWN? ;)
Don’t you know the difference?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
True to form, the editors of the New York Times have rushed to the defense of President Bush against suggestions that his administration could be implicated in one of the largest corporate frauds in history, which produced the collapse of Enron Corporation, the energy trading giant.
OOPS! See when the GOP does fraud it isn’t a KINDLY OLD MAN who’s a SOCIOPATH and GETS CAUGHT, it includes GOP LEADERS, COVERUPS and CORRUPTION! That’s why YOU AS A *GROUP* are criticized! ;)
Changing the subject with old news Pal.
Sorry I don’t play games. Deal with the here and now Pal. I have to call you Pal because you hide who you are unlike myself.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:58 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay, poor little TARD if you CAN’T EXPLAIN what “SOCIALISM” is, leveling the CHARGE against SOMEONE is MORONIC! Like EVERYTHING YOU’VE DONE HERE! ;)
Deflect from the discussion. Don’t you know the meaning Pal.
Can you only call names. It seems that you couldn’t post without doing it.
I have posted all the meanings you want from me here already. I suggest you go look them up. I’m not in the habit of posting the same information over and over for hateful people like you. It’s there, go find it.
OBTW my name is Jay. What’s yours?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pmHey, what’s your name, you can find the definition on Wikipedia. Not hard to find.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:06 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
This morning on ABC News “This Week”, Republican Senator LIndsey Graham and Rep. Peter King both argued nationalizing banks may be in order while Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Maxine Waters opposed such a move.
So? Your point is that some Dems don’t care to nationalize the banks. Good for them.
OBTW your friend Chuck took massive amounts of money from Bernie in campaign funds. They were close friends.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
What’s your last name jay, and where do you live since you see no problem in divulging private information here?
Right? Right after you tell me yours. First names are not a problem but anything else is private. So your first name is?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pmBUSH *CUT* the SEC :(
Bush had nothing to do with it. It started long before Bush. Some time back during the Carter administration I think. You go on with your Bush Bashing. I don’t mind.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:15 pmSo tell me “jay” how many DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS have suggested SOCIALISM for the BANKS? So far I CAN ONLY FIND REPUBLICANS! ;)
That’s because you are only looking for Republicans.
OBTW my name is Jay, what’s yours?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pmAh, so you’re a P*SSY as USUAL *AND* a HYPOCRITE! Expected… ZZZZzzzz
And there you have it. A reply from a sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pmNOTHING? ROTFL! Yeah BUSH only OVERSAW wall street for THE LAST EIGHT YEARS!!! Calling for DEREGULATION and LET THE MARKET REGULATE ITSELF!! He had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
And *YES* deregulation DID make a LEAP under Carter thanks to the GOP PEELING off BLUE DOGS. Still MORE OF THE SAME B*LLSH*T of RayGUNomics talking free market DEREGULATION! You TARDS are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE in making ENRON and MADOFF POSSIBLE! f88king loSERs!
Your right. It also was rampant during the Clinton administration. Poor bill signed so many bills deregulating all kinds of stuff. Gotta hand it to old Bill.
OBTW My name is Jay, what’s yours? Sockpuppet?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:21 pmCome on Jay, last name, don’t be such a p*ssy as always! ;)
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. That from a sockpuppet. Right?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:23 pmI use my name and you use “Republicans hate facts” and I’m the sock puppet. What’s wrong, something to hide.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pmFeb 20, 2009 … The banks must really be in trouble if Schumer think we should nationalize the banks. “Huffington Post”
Senator Graham may support nationalizing banks; by Anthony G. Martin; Columbia Conservative Examiner; February 18, 2009. …
Detoxify Banks and Get Back To Business
Nationalized detoxification appears the only way to plug the leak in the banking dam. Bank of America and Citigroup have each received $45 billion from the government in recent months. Management at both institutions has come under severe scrutiny. Taxpayers are clearly reluctant to continue the bailout trend and Washington is scrambling for solutions.
Secretary Geithner has indicated that 25 banks with assets more than $100 billion each will be subjected to “stress tests” to assess their capital needs. The White House acknowledged that a sense of bailout fatigue has gained strength. Detoxified nationalization may well be the least painful alternative.
After the detoxification program, the government will apply stringent lending and qualifying practices to these monitored institutions. The nationalization strategy appears to have support from both sides of the aisle as well as from Allen Greenspan who described “government intervention as the least bad alternative left.”
Nationalization of failing “stress test” banks is now seen as the possible savior of capitalism. The sooner these nationalized mini-banks are returned to the private side, the quicker we return to capitalism and the sooner the taxpayer’s recover their nervous investments.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pmhttp://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/bank-nationalization-possibility/
republicans hate facts Says:
So jay you CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. You said that a FIRST NAME had NO VALUE, but if it HAD NO VALUE, then how could it be SOMETHING TO HIDE? You REALLY should get your STORY STRAIGHT, PWNING YOURSELF has become a THEME for YOU! ;)
So if you WON’T TELL me your LAST NAME JAY, what do you HAVE TO HIDE? ;)
So why do you hide behind a sockpuppet? I’ll tell you may last name right after you tell me yours. Hell you won’t even give me your first name.
Your just a sockpuppet with a foul mouth. The compulsive liar is the one who hides behind a sock name.
Sorry Pal. If you’re such a paranoid poster that you don’t want people to know your first name then so be it. What are you hiding except your dishonesty.
Your credibility=zero. socks have no credibility anywhere. You lose.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pmEXCEPT that’s not WHAT YOUR ARTICLE SAYS!! ROTFL!!Right from the Huffington post. English Pal. Learn to read it. Learn to understand it.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:43 pmYour a loser anyway.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:44 pmLoser sock puppets have no credibility on the internet. They are hiding something and should never be believed.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:47 pmThat would be “You’re a loser anyway.”
For SOMEONE that CRITICIZES OTHERS on ATROCIOUS GRAMMAR and SPELLING, you REALLY should to back to PRIMARY SCHOOL and STOP PROJECTING SO MUCH! ;)
“You’re” is correct sock puppet loser.
You are (you’re) a loser anyway. No matter how you spell it, you’re a loser sock puppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:51 pmALREADY DID, and already POSTED what the ARTICLE SAID. You don’t know what SOCIALISM, MILITIA, NATIONALIZATION among a WHOLE LIST OF OTHER WORDS and you LECTURE ME on ENGLISH!! ROTFL!! That’s HYSTERICAL coming from an ILLITERATE DUM BASS like YOU! ;)
Who should pay any attention to a sockpuppet. No credibility at all.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:52 pmyou’re (yr; yr when unstressed)
Contraction of you are.
So you’re the smart one sockpuppet. NOT.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pmYou’re RIGHT, you have NO CREDIBILITY and NO ONE PAYS ATTENTION TO YOU! ROTFL! ;)
The sock puppet preaches about “CREDIBILITY”. LMAO.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:59 pmNO ONE PAYS ATTENTION TO YOU!
You do but then you are “no one” right sockpuppet?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pmPROJECTING AGAIN? ;)
A sockpuppet posts?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:11 pmWhat you hiding sockpuppet? Tantrums now?
Your credibility is now zero. Hide behind your sock name. You’re the big man right. Sure.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pmNice to see I WAS ABLE to CORRECT YOUR USAGE of YOUR and YOU’RE! You’re welcome, little sock puppet loser p*ssy! ;)
You corrected nothing sockpuppet. It was correct.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pmSorry sock puppet my usage was correct.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:36 pmYour a loser anyway.
You’re correct. Hey only sockpuppets are perfect right?
You’re still a loser sockpuppet. Everyone makes typo’s. You make them all the time and you can’t spell either. At least without using ***** in your words.
But you are just a sock puppet and you’re credibility is still zero.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pmSockpuppet = compulsive liar, illiterate, cowardly, and all around p*ssy! ;)
March 12th, 2009 at 3:44 pmSockpuppets have zero credibility on the internet. I guess you’re just a loser.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
your != you are
your != you’re
you’re = you are
See how easy that lesson was sock puppet! ;)
You’re WELCOME!
No lesson because I know the difference to begin with. Typo’s are common with everyone. You’re not so good at the spelling thing sockpuppet as I have shown. You’re just a sockpuppet on the internet hiding something. You just might be considered a Troll here hiding your identity.
What is it Troll sockpuppet? I mean what are you hiding?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pmYou are TRULY SCUM!
And you’re just a Troll sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pmROTFL!! Is that why you CLAIMED it was a VALID USAGE until I had to WHIP YOUR *SS with the DICTIONARY!! You’re such a COMPULSIVE LIAR you can’t admit you were “WRONG” you have to “LIE” yet AGAIN and say it was JUST A MISTAKE? ROTFL!! What a F**KING INSECURE LOSER!
It was because I missed it in the post sockpuppet. You still hiding, troll sockpuppet? YUP. Who gives socks like you any credibility? Not me. They are all mouth such as yourself.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pmThe Troll Sockpuppet is posting to himself. What do you expect from a troll?
March 12th, 2009 at 4:27 pmWOW, that’s 75,000 people that are SHOT a year who DON’T DIE!!
Who’s shooting who? The date???? 2000, hmmmm. I think Clinton had more to do with this than meets the eye. What do you think Troll Sockpuppet. Then again it’s posted by a sockpuppet hiding in the shadows trying to make people think that he is some kind of thinking, caring person. What a LIAR a sock puppet can be especially a Troll sockpuppet. So who cares.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:35 pmTHAT *SHOULD* be disturbing to a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, too bad for the US that the GOP IS FILLED with UNCIVILIZED DISHONEST RUBES like JAY!
Sockpuppet blather. Who cares?
March 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Now WHICH MILITIA did you belong to jay? And WHO SPIT ON YOU AGAIN? Did you GRAB HER *SS, or was it REALLY a GUY and you’re just TOO AFRAID TO ADMIT you TOE TAPPED yourself into a MESS? I *SEE* you jay! ;)
Blah, blah, blah, blah from a sockpuppet Troll. Who cares what he has to say? Liars, you know what I mean?
March 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pmPROJECT MUCH?
Too bad the OTHER STUDIES that I CITED showed that CARRYING and HAVING A WEAPON *INCREASES* the chance of a VIOLENT OUTCOME!!! OOPS!
The FACTS are NOT KIND TO YOU SOCK PUPPET! ;)
Sockpuppet nonsense from a liar who is trying to impress people. He don’t impress me. Maybe this sockpuppet troll impresses someone else. He just keeps reposting the same garbage over and over and over.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pmOuch! So much for COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE! The GOP doesn’t give a d*mn about children once they’re out of the womb!
It don’t bother me one bit. But then again anything coming from a sockpuppet is just nonsense anyway. They try to convince people that they care but if you can’t tell someone what your first name is and have to hide behind a sock, then they are living a lie. That’s wwhat a LIAR is.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pmWhat was your name again jay? other than sock puppet? ;)
Just one name sockpuppet, how many do you have? I don’t really care, a liar is a liar.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:47 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Sockpuppet nonsense from a liar who is trying to impress people. He don’t impress me. Maybe this sockpuppet troll impresses someone else. He just keeps reposting the same garbage over and over and over.
ROTFL!!! We BOTH KNOW you are *SO* impressed by me you’re NOW OBSESSED with ME!! ROTFL!! But you PROJECTING YOUR TRAIT of *LYING* after GETTING CAUGHT MULTIPLE TIMES shows me how DESPERATE you are to TEAR ME DOWN out of your OVERWHELMING INSECURITY!!! I can’t really BLAME YOU, I MOPPED THE FLOOR with your IGNORANT *SS!
There are TWO WAYS to LOOK GOOD. One is to WORK HARD and BECOME GOOD, the OTHER is to KNOW NOTHING and only TEAR OTHERS DOWN! See TARD, you S**K at BOTH, and I’M BETTER THAN YOU in EVERY WAY! And YOU KNOW IT, and you HATE IT, and that’s why you are SO DESPERATE to know *WHO* can CONSTANTLY PWN YOU!! It’s VERY CUTE in that DESPERATE NEEDY NERDY GOP WAY! ;)
!
Puppets don’t impress me. I’m sure you impress yourself though. Come on out of the closet socky ol boy. Stop living the lie.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pmWhy do you need to try to impress me Troll. I saw through you 2 days ago. You are what you are, a sockpuppet trying to impress himself.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pmYou’re just an amusing distraction while I’m at work, nothing more. Passing time Troll sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:55 pmROTFL!! PROJECT MUCH?
Great comeback troll sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:58 pmSo you’re CHEATING your EMPLOYER
Another good one troll sockpuppet. I’m my employer.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:00 pmThe GOP TROLL that SPENDS ITS TIME on a PROGRESSIVE BLOG
I’m a member here troll sockpuppet and I use my own name unlike you.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:02 pmROTFL!! SURE you ARE!!! Your MOMMA is gonna GET MAD when she comes home and you haven’t CLEANED the TOILETS YET! ;)
Now you’re projecting troll sockpuppet. You better get the brush out and start cleaning. LMAO
March 12th, 2009 at 5:04 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan.
OOPS!
It will for me sockpuppet. You see I know how to defend myself. But who cares what a troll sockpuppet has to say. Right?
March 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pmROTFL!!! The GOP DELUSION IS TOO F**KING FUNNY!!! You know that METH won’t COOK ITSELF! ROTFL! ;)
You better get to it then I guess troll sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pmOOPS! Looks like GUNS *DO* kill people!
My gun has killed less people then Ted Kennedy’s car has.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pmMy gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy’s car has.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:11 pmYET you don’t have a RIGHT to THAT GUN under the CONSTITUTION,
Blah, blah blah, blah. In my State I do troll sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:13 pmRIGHTS are what’s in the CONSTITUTION, and SORRY but YOU DON’T have a RIGHT to that gun according to the CONSTITUTION! ;)
Try the 10th amendment troll. Until the feds say it’s illegal then it is legal. The Constitution you know.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pmWhat no comeback troll?
March 12th, 2009 at 5:22 pmRight now the Troll sockpuppet is looking up the 10th amendment.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pmWhat’s the problem Troll. I have a copy of the Constitution on my desk, don’t you?
March 12th, 2009 at 5:28 pmWhat’s the problem troll sockpuppet? It’s such a small amendment, only two lines.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:35 pmLEGALITY != RIGHT DUM BASS!
Rights are things GUARANTEED by the CONSTITUTION! I REPEAT MY ADVICE – BUY A DICTIONARY YOU ILLITERATE RUBE!
What was that troll. I do have the right to keep and bear arms and I don’t have to be in a militia?
C’mon say it troll. I can’t here you. The Troll sockpuppet has just been put in his place by dumb ass ol’ me.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:46 pmSays the LAME TROLL that can ONLY PROJECT!! ROTFL! ;
Your the troll sockpuppet here. My name is jay, what’s yours?
March 12th, 2009 at 5:48 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
There’s also that INCONVENIENT FACT that the *STRAINED* reading of SCALIA and the rest of the FEDERALIST BUMS would mean that TANKS, FIGHTER JETS and any other ADVANCE WEAPONRY would be *LEGAL* in order to *DEFEND* ourselves FROM OUR GOVERNMENT!! That JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is one CRAZY THING when the GOP DOES IT!! ROTFL! ;)
Lame argument from a troll sockpuppet. Doesn’t mean a thing. Now lets here it troll. I have the right under the constitution to keep and bear arms without belonging to a militia. Admit that all your past two days of rantings are meaningless dribble.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pmI don’t own a jet or a tank or any advanced weaponry troll. Lame argument. You’re deflecting again.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pmThe RIGHT isn’t granted by the CONSTITUTION, it’s only CURRENTLY LEGAL because the ACTIVIST FEDERALIST JUDGES *REFUSE* to HONOR the constitution! That TOO shall PASS! ;)
Now, now troll. You’re trying to tell me that the 10th amendment isn’t part of the Constitution. Who’s the dumb ass.
You were completely wrong in your rantings of the past two days. Now let me here it sockpuppet, I have the right to keep and bear arms and that right comes from the Constitution of The United states and I don’t have to be a member of a Militia.. C’mon.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:58 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Scalia got his *ss whooped in the decision, much like the BEATING that I GAVE YOU! He was as CLUELESS and IGNORANT as YOU ARE! ;)
Right.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pmCLUELESS and IGNORANT as YOU ARE! ;)
It would seem that I’m a bit smarter than the sockpuppet. He’s had it handed to him but will never admit that he was wrong. Well he is just a sockpuppet liar, right?
March 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pmNow, now troll. You’re trying to tell me that the 10th amendment isn’t part of the Constitution. Who’s the dumb ass.
You were completely wrong in your rantings of the past two days. Now let me here it sockpuppet, I have the right to keep and bear arms and that right comes from the Constitution of The United states and I don’t have to be a member of a Militia.. C’mon.
Trying to change the subject troll sockpuppet. Of course you are.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:03 pmYou were completely wrong in your rantings of the past two days. Now let me here it sockpuppet, I have the right to keep and bear arms and that right comes from the Constitution of The United states and I don’t have to be a member of a Militia.. C’mon.
I’ll correct my own tyo. hear
March 12th, 2009 at 6:04 pmI didn’t think you were man enough.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:05 pmA 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.
That’s what is says troll sockpuppet but it doesn’t mean you have to be a member of a militia to own a firearm as you have constantly been yelling. Your mind is clouded by your dogma. But then again you are just a troll sockpuppet that has just been put in his place bu stupid ol’ me..
March 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
I didn’t think you were man enough.
Coming from a p*ssy sock puppet that DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH GRAMMAR – that REALLY HURT!! ROTFL! ;)
Right. Your Not man enought. I get it.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:10 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
In one description, known to grammarians as an ablative absolute, the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification clause, followed by a declarative clause. Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. This was a grammar structure that was common during that era. This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.
OOPS! Looks like JAY’S ATROCIOUS GRAMMAR – STRIKES AGAIN!! ROTFL!!
You really lost it sockpuppet. I didn’t write that. You just aren’t man enough to admit he was wrong. What can you say about a Troll Sockpuppet. Just no a man at all.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pmI didn’t think you were man enough.
And there you have it. Not really a man at all. Just a sock puppet liar..
March 12th, 2009 at 6:16 pmablative absolute look it up! ;)
Not my words troll.
How abut you looking up “being a man” sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:18 pmI NEVER SAID that I WAS A MAN. I never said ANYTHING about MY GENDER. ;)
What I DID SAY is that YOU are an ILLITERATE p*ssy with BAD SPELLING and GRAMMAER, and I CLEARLY ESTABLISHED it TO BE TRUE! ;)
Blah, blah, blah, blah. If you’re a sockpuppet how would anyone tell. If you’re not a man then you’re a vulgar woman. That’s even worse. What should some one call you sockpuppet loser who can’t admit that they were wrong and wasted two days spouting dribble? I may make typo’s but you were wrong.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:22 pmSays the INSECURE LITTLE BOY who was too big of P*SSY to BE A MAN TODAY!!
I’m quite secure and you were wrong. Admit it troll sockpuppet who now claims he is not a man and is hiding behind her skirt.
You do have issues troll sockpuppet. That’s why you wouldn’t give me your name. You’re ashamed to admit that you are a woman. Some issues there troll?
March 12th, 2009 at 6:26 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
So the TARD is PARSING the SECOND AMENDMENT for MEANING yet it DOESN’T KNOW what ablative absolute means! ROTFL!! That’s JUST TOO FUNNY! But you know *I* am WRONG according to the SOCK PUPPET!! IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS when a CON is INVOLVED! ;)
You were wrong Sally.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:27 pmSo your a fan of William Harris. So what.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:34 pmThe sock puppet has been put in it’s place. It’s not so smart after all. I have to say It’s because who knows what a gender a sockpuppet liar is. Oh well.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:40 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
ablative absolute consists of an opening justification clause, followed by a declarative clause.
I’m sure you’ll need to look most of those words up, I’ll check back on you in a few hours when you’re done…
Sorry “IT” I looked it up some time ago. It’s not important. What is important is that you were wrong and don’t have the character to admit it. But you are just a Troll Sockpuppet after all. You’re just trying to change the subject. Where are all the Militia post and all that crap that you were spewing all day?
March 12th, 2009 at 6:45 pmYES YOU HAVE JANE!!! But to BE FAIR, you NEVER STOOD A CHANCE! You have BAD GRAMMAR, BAD SPELLING and don’t anything other than HOW TO WHINE like a little p*ssy! ;)
That’s not important is it? I put you in your place. I never said that I was perfect. No one is except you (in your mind) sockpuppet.
I don’t claim to be anyone other than myself and use my own name unlike sockpuppet Troll. I know one thing, I’m not a vulgar person like you sockpuppet. Hey did I leave out the fact that you were wrong.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pmPosting to yourself again. You are hard up. It must be so hard to be perfect with all those imperfect people around them?
Well what can you expect from a vulgar troll who spells words with ***** in them. Sorry troll. Vulgarity isn’t my thing and for a perfect person as yourself it shows your upbringing.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:53 pmYou had it handed to you today but you’ll never admit it Troll. Something in your ego and character I suspect.
You think you are perfect but you really are lacking. Why do you use the caps so much? Troll stuff I presume.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:56 pmWell POLITE SOCIETY would consider the “*” a POLITE post, but VULGAR RUBES like YOU would PREFER TO READ THE REAL THING! It’s OK, you’re a PRODUCT OF YOUR CHILDHOOD! You can’t HELP being a VULGAR RUBE! ;)
Just an excuse from you. Why do you need to do it at all? No it was meant to be vulgar and I take it as being vulgar. That’s your life now isn’t it? I’m the rube. Right.
You have no character and you can’t admit that you were ever wrong about anything can you?
March 12th, 2009 at 7:01 pmno YOU USED to THINK you were PERFECT until I showed you what an IGNORANT MORON you are! ;) Now all you can is SLAP like the POWERLESS LITTLE B*TCH that we BOTH KNOW YOU TO BE! ;)
There you go again. The weakness in your character pops its head. So you’re not as perfect as you tell yourself you are.
Just a troll sockpuppet liar with a weak character and an inflated ego. Like many here.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:05 pmMAINLY to ANNOY people LIKE YOU! Glad it WORKS! ;)It doesn’t really bother me. I understand where it comes from. You. A weak minded person who has to resort to those tactics because you can’t exist here without it troll sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pmHey I just read that someone here was crying that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t in the Constitution unless you belong to a militia.
They also have a problem with men. Chuck Norris for one.
He sockpuppet Troll, what do you think?
March 12th, 2009 at 7:11 pmFUNNY PROJECTION coming from the TROLL! When you WIN A SINGLE ARGUMENT your ASSESSMENTS will CARRY MORE WEIGHT! ;)
I won the major one today. You lost a major one today. Sockpuppet Troll.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:13 pmA WEAK MINDED person (ONLY) attacks the STYLE (ATROCIOUS PUNCTUATION) when they CAN’T defeat their ARGUMENTS! That’s why I had so MUCH FUN turning YOUR STUPIDITY back ONTO YOU JANE! ;) But a RUBE like YOU couldn’t POSSIBLY DISCUSS the LEGAL MERITS so this is ALL YA GOT! You’re just a WEAK MINDED PERSON who’s DESPERATE to FIND A FOOTING after CONSTANTLY LOSING EVERY POINT for the PAST TWO DAYS! I’ve DRIVEN YOU CRAZY and it’s SO FUN TO DO! ;) ROTFL!
Yet all your militia nonsense was proven to be garbage.
I enjoyed it. You can’t stand it that I use you and your nonsense as entertainment. You’re not special troll. Just a pawn for enjoyment.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pmI could just picture you choking when I brought up my 10th amendment facts and you scrambling for something to counter me with. All you could come up with was the same old dribble that you have been spouting for the past two days. Not bad for a person with bad grammar.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:19 pmThe MORE YOU LOOK, the CRAZIER the FEDERALIST/GOP activist JUDGES and their MINDLESS MINIONS (Jane) seem to be! ;)
Blah, blah, blah blah. More of the same ol’ same ol’. More sockpuppet troll garbage. Sadly it’s all you have.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pmROTFL!! SURE!!! I’m HAPPY to THROW YOUR TROLL SH!T back in your FACE! Can’t STAND IT! Sounds like Jane is PROJECTING AGAIN! Can’t BLAME YOU considering you CAME SO UNPREPARED to DEBATE! What else ya got other than this dribble? ;) ;)
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Means nothing. You are entertaining though. More garbage from you. You continually post the same garbage over and over. It’s all you have. Your so shallow when you are reduced to repeating yourself. Heard it all before troll sockpuppet.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:26 pmOh JANE, I had to go take a dump, all of your sh!t was giving me cramps! I can UNDERSTAND how SOMEONE as INSECURE AS YOU ARE would assume I had ABANDONED you though! That was SOME ROUGH CHILDHOOD HUH? ;)
Ya right. I really believe that. Ha Ha Ha Ha.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:29 pmI have to go home now. Maybe I’ll check back in an hour or so to see what you post behind my back. I already know what it will be because you’re so predictable. Sockpuppets always are. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha LMAO
March 12th, 2009 at 7:31 pmHow many BAD RELATIONSHIPS have you GONE THROUGH Jane? ;)
Can’t win the argument resort to Character attacks. A big flaw in YOUR character sockpuppet.
Hey when your myopic then sometimes you get smacked on the side of the head.
Gotta go. Enjoy yourself. I know you will. You post to yourself all the time. Do you like reading your own dribble?
See ya.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:38 pmsee jANE in a BLOG, you POST INFO relative to the “TOPICS”, a conversation with a DYSFUNCTIONAL TROLL like YOU that is TOO INSECURE, BRITTLE and SELF LOATHING to have a RELATIONSHIP with OTHERS isn’t REQUIRED! ;)
There, I’m GLAD I could EXPLAIN the NATURE OF BLOGGING to you. I know SMART PEOPLE things are DIFFICULT for RUBES LIKE YOU, that like to “dribble” on the keyboard!! ROTFL! ;)
Maybe you should explain it to yourself. This is more of a forum than a blog. So you’re not that perfect after all. I’d dare to say that you’re not perfect at all if you get such a simple thing as this wrong.
fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)
1.
a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
b. A public meeting place for open discussion.
c. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
Noun 1. blog – a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies; “postings on a blog are usually in chronological order”
web log
diary, journal – a daily written record of (usually personal) experiences and observations
Verb 1. blog – read, write, or edit a shared on-line journal
Oh well. What do you expect from a troll sockpuppet?
March 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pmSoooooo if you think you are blogging then you’re saying that you are posting to yourself. Hmmm. I see. You talk to yourself. Do you do that often and has anyone talked to you about it?
I’m the rube. Ya right. Sockpuppet got hosed today and she posts to herself. I see.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:31 pmWell that’s KINDA THE POINT on a BLOG – DUM BASS!!! ROTFL! To BLOG! It’s a BLOG, I POST, and the READERS find it, or they don’t. That’s sorta the POINT of BLOGGING, but since you’re completely TARDED, we’ll just LEAVE IT AT. Sure JANE, whatever is in that little empty head of yours is the truth!! ROTFL!!
Having a problem with the English language now are ya.
Don’t understand the definition of things. Miss perfect is ignorant of definitions even when they are posted for her.
Not so perfect with your grammar either. Here, I’ll help you again.
fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)
1.
a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
b. A public meeting place for open discussion.
c. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
Noun 1. blog – a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies; “postings on a blog are usually in chronological order”
web log
diary, journal – a daily written record of (usually personal) experiences and observations
Verb 1. blog – read, write, or edit a shared on-line journal
Now I don’t care if Think Progress has it wrong also. They have many things wrong.
republicans hate facts Says:
The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs.
The term doesn’t really fit the situation moron. It was a poor choice of words for a person who claims to be so perfect.
Once again a poor choice of words for such a perfect moron such as yourself.
Oh ya and you got hosed too.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:20 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Jane says:
I’d dare to say that you’re not perfect at all if you get such a simple thing as this wrong.
ROTFL!! It’s YOU that KEEPS CALLING *ME* PERFECT! ROTFL!! That CRUSH OF YOURS is really EMBARRASSING and UNAPPEALING to me – just so you know Jane! ;) NEEDY insecure pathetic little cowardly p*ssies aren’t attractive to ANYONE! It’s why the GOP is down to 24%!!! ;)
No crush troll sockpuppet. You came here to post to me and stayed for 10 hours until you got hosed. I’d call it a Electra complex . That 24% figure is just a pipe dream of yours. The last time I looked it was GOP 48% Liberal Dems 47%. Right here on this site. Other polls show more and more people are not happy with Obie’s spending and inability to get things done. It’s coming pissant.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:28 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
ROTFL!! Jane doesn’t know what a BLOG IS!! HYSTERICAL!!
FORUMS permit people to CREATE THEIR OWN TOPICS, not leave COMMENTS on the “JOURNAL/TOPIC” entries of the BLOG OWNERS!!
DOH!! Jane, you’re one ignorant sl*t! ;) Poor choice of words used by miss perfect. Hosed again. Don’t you understand simple English? I’ll post it again for you since your having trouble with it rhf sockpuppet.
fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)
1.
a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
b. A public meeting place for open discussion.
c. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
Noun 1. blog - a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies; “postings on a blog are usually in chronological order”
web log diary, journal – a daily written record of (usually personal) experiences and observations
Verb 1. blog – read, write, or edit a shared on-line journal
There any better sockpuppet. English language, you know?
March 12th, 2009 at 11:34 pmI gotta go. You just go on blogging with yourself.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
March 12th, 2009 at 11:34 pmTooooo funny. You got hosed and can’t deal with it. Hey, I’m also a member here putz or should I say piss ant.
rhf got hosed. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I copied it too.
You have fun blogging your diaries and personal thoughts with yourself. Electra complex for sure or maybe you have a thing for the ladies, either way, you got hosed.
Good Blogging. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:40 pmmore akin to blogs
Not a blog but more akin to blogs. Interesting.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:45 pmOOPS, no THREADS HERE, but THREADS are a CHARACTERISTIC of FORUMS not BLOGS!! ROTFL! ;)
Well this is exactly a thread started by Ben Armbruwster. What? You thought he was reporting the news.
You’re a joke. Sockpuppet troll rhf.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:59 pm#
#
republicans hate facts Says:
Thread
A thread is a collection of posts, usually displayed – by default – from oldest to latest, although the option for a threaded view (a tree-like view applying logical reply structure before chronological order) can be available. A thread is defined by a title, an additional description that may summarise the intended discussion, and an opening or original post (common abbreviation ‘OP’, which can also mean original poster) which opens whatever dialogue or makes whatever announcement the poster wished.
Just like here.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:03 amROTFL!! But SEE you DIDN’T *READ* the DEFINITION again! *USERS* not *ADMINISTRATORS* create threads in FORUMS!!
Right. Ben Armbruster starts the thread with his left wing opinion on what happened with the sole purpose of allowing people like you to stroke his ego with your comments.
Administrators are not restricted from starting threads.
Maybe in your foggy brain they are.
Sorry sockpuppet rhf, you used the wrong word. You just go on and make more excuses for your nonsense. You’re good at making excuses and vulgarity and also posting nonsense. It’s your trademark right? Myopic thought. Your ego is getting in the way. I’m still waiting for you to admit that the people in this country have the right to keep and bear arms. I’m not holding my breath though.
People like you are all alike. That is why the GOP will make a comeback. The American people are beginning to see you for what you are and they don’t like it.
You still got hosed piss ant.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:18 amROTFL! No we’re NEWEST FIRST, the OPPOSITE of what you claim, and USERS don’t create threads here. What an IDIOT little p*ssy!! It must s*ck for LOSE EVERY TIME!!! ROTFL!
NO, but USERS ARE restricted from DOING IT on BLOGS unlike FORUMS!
Not so. Any user can submit a written subject or news item for discussion here. What you didn’t know that?
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We’d love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Any one can be a guest reporter if you want to call it that. You really don’t know much about this site do you?
The starter of this thread opened it to discussion with these words:
So does this mean that Steele also wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
How ignorant are you tonight.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:39 amHey, you go on spreading your nonsense and playing with yourself. I’m going to bed.
Go Blog with yourself sock puppet loser rhf who was hosed today.
Your ego must be in shambles by now to come up with the excuses you’re using right now.
See ya. You go on posting your crap to someone who has gone to bed.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:41 amMore crap from a sockpuppet. Maybe you should learn the English language and chose your words more carefully.
Your just throwing up smoke like you always do when you don’t get your way or are challenged buy a superior argument.
Loser. Sockpuppet rhf lost big today but she can’t admit.
Nighty nite loser. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Fell free to blog with your self or what ever turns a person like you on. Hey loser. GOP comeback in 2 years. Prepare yourself for it.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. You got totally hosed and I did it without one swearword too. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:53 amFeel free to blog with your self
Loser. Sockpuppet rhf lost big today but she can’t admit it.
I can correct my own typo’s.
Bye. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. LMAO all day.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:58 amThat’s because you aren’t USED to being SOMEONE’S B*TCH that’s so much SMARTER, SOPHISTICATED and KNOWLEDGEABLE than you are! Of COURSE you LAUGHED, and LEARNED and GREW even if you’re STILL IN DENIAL about it Jane! But your CRUSH is really a PROBLEM for your ELECTRA Complex! You should go get that TREATED girlfriend! ;)
There you have it. A post from a small person who can’t admit that IT was wrong. rhf thinks IT’s a
person but it turns out that rhf is just a sockpuppet with a vulgar mouth who got hosed.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:24 amYou do realize the you’re on the hook rhf sockpuppet, right?
You did come to me.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:38 pmDay three. Self-Abasement???? Seems so. Do you know when I knew you were done for? It happened when you started using my words in your comments.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:41 pmYou’re on the hook. You have to resort to nonsense in your posts. A stalker with an obsession. Typical posts from a sockpuppet. You do know that you’re on the hook don’t you?
March 13th, 2009 at 3:52 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Oh, and jane, both the WORDS and the MEANINGS belong to the *DICTIONARY* and NOT TO YOU! That’s where you get TRIPPED UP little girl! ;)
Right! A callow thought from an Stalker with monomania.
You go tell yourself that. Nonsense from an unlettered person.
Dictionary pissant. It’s what you live by right. You do know that I have the hook in your lip and you’re flopping on the floor. Right?
March 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pmWHAT’S wrong WITH THE CAPS key on YOUR KEYBOARD, PISSANT unlettered STALKER? A loser SOCKPUPPET TROLL with an obsession that YOU CAN’T deal WITH.;)
March 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pmBlah, blah, blah, blah. More nonsense from a callow stalker. Can you feel the hook in your lip loser. YOU’RE POST are REALLY SHALLOW pissant AND YOU’RE on the HOOK SOCKPUPPET.
More nonsense. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. I’m really getting to you. YOU DO throw THE INSULTS when YOU LOSE an ARGUMENT.
A globefish flopping on the floor. Liberal stalkers are all the same. I’ve dealt with idiots like you before. Seen all the tactics THAT YOU LIBERALS use when THEY GET HOSED.;)
Oh that 30 minute visit to the toilet yesterday tells me that you need xlax or you are really full of it. The later rather than the former I suspect.
Ha Ha Ha Ha LMAO.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pmLiberal losers usually protest much TOOOOOO much when they get hosed. A character flaw on your part sockpuppet Troll rhf.
You do know that you are on the hook don’t you?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha LMAO Cum’ on. Let me have more of your insecurity. The people here are dieing from the laughter.
They want to end the day with some chuckles.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:08 pmBlah blah blah blah. Get a grip sockpuppet. Your nonsense isn’t making any points. A liberal tactic that I’ve seen sooooo many times. It doesn’t work on me. Your here posting on a three day old thread because you’re a stalker who can’t let it go. That means that you are on the hook and are flopping on the floor.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha . LMAO.
Post more garbage sockpuppet. The people here want to see how far you’re going to go with this weak defense of your intelligence. Sort of a Levophobia. on your part so to speak.
Keep flopping. RLMAO
March 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pmHey sockpuppet rhf. They want me to ask you “How many liberals it takes to form a Militia?”
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:54 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Let me have more of your insecurity. The people here are dieing from the laughter.
That would be spelled “dying”,
Thanks for doing my proofreading for me sockpuppet stalker. I can’t pay you but the honor of just being around me should be enough. Right?
March 13th, 2009 at 6:12 pmThe discussion about the second amendment will result, as we’ve seen, in inane chatter in which neither side will bend to the prowess of the other’s argument. Suffice it to say that this article is not about whether the Constitution grants or prohibits the right to bear these so-called “assault weapons”. It concerns a Republican who’s in a hissy fit because there is a very liberal man sitting in the Oval Office. Mr. Steele’s comments about the necessity of “assault weapons” borders on stupidity. The inclusion of the right to bear arms was for hunting, truly, but also for self defense and for defense of the State and Nation. When people ask, “why would you need such weapons as an AR-15 or an AK-47 (Kalashnikov knock offs)?” Your response should not entail hunting, but rather that you are exercising your rights and preparing yourself for a day that many hope and dream will never come: a day “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” (Decl of Ind. 1776) Arguments concerning crime rates are farcical and the only response this user can give to anyone who considers them worth mentioning is that guns don’t kill people, people kill other people. Treat the people who could one day become the criminals, and you can avoid your statistics. Banning guns won’t cure a society.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:05 amWell said, devil dog. I think the main reason that talk centers around hunting and crime rates is because people are uncomfortable with the idea that we have the right and some would say the responsibility to overthrow the government, the aforementioned “Right of the People”. People tend to switch off after they hear that, and commonly assume you advocate overthrowing the government just because you disagree with it and you use lofty words and quotes from the founding fathers to justify your actions.
And personally, I’m close to saying banning doesn’t work for anything. Legalize it all I say, and let the shit fall where it may.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:16 amWELL SAID,IT IS OUR DUTY TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT FIRST.REMEMBER THE GOV IS EMPLOYEED BY THE STATES,AND WE ARE NOT A DEMOC,WE ARE A REPUBLIC.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:36 pm