Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Gun owners have no concern for the lives of innocents killed because of their pathetic need to feel important.

It's the gun control movement who doesn't care about saving lives. All they care about is violating people's civil liberties for fun.

(Fun for the progressives, not for the people whose civil liberties are violated.)

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You don't care about all the innocent people killed by your pathetic need to have a gun.

No actually that's the gun control movement. They don't care about saving lives. All they care about is violating people's civil liberties for fun.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The children in Sandy Hook had their liberties violated.

Protecting children isn't "fun" it's essential for a decent society.

What you find fun is school shootings, it's disgusting.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The children in Sandy Hook had their liberties violated.

That doesn't make it OK to turn their deaths into a weapon to violate other people's civil liberties.

izzythepush wrote:

Protecting children isn't "fun" it's essential for a decent society.

The American left doesn't care about protecting children. They just like to violate other people's civil liberties for fun. They try to use dead children as a weapon to do that.

izzythepush wrote:

What you find fun is school shootings, it's disgusting.

Nonsense. What I find fun is World of Warcraft.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Since America is a free country, we aren't going to ban either.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Canada temporarily bans handgun import until passage of gun control law
(reuters)

It's a shame that Canada isn't a free country.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Have you got some sort of condition?

What you're doing is obsessive and persistant.

All you've done since you've come back is argue.

You've not even done that, all you've done is repeat the same worn out glib phrases ad nauseam.

You've done nothing to further the debate, no points of interest, no stats, just the same tired, hackneyed responses.

It's like Groundhog Day where you say the same thing over and over again.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Have you got some sort of condition?

Belief in truth and freedom.

izzythepush wrote:

What you're doing is obsessive and persistant.
All you've done since you've come back is argue.

Good for me.

izzythepush wrote:

You've not even done that, all you've done is repeat the same worn out glib phrases ad nauseam.

I'm responding to the same untrue claims.

Why don't you complain about the people who are making the same untrue claims over and over again?

For that matter, why do you make the same untrue claims over and over again? The NRA has never killed anyone or harmed a child.

If it's OK for you to redundantly repeat that same falsehood over and over again, it's certainly OK for me to challenge it each time you repeat it.

izzythepush wrote:

You've done nothing to further the debate, no points of interest, no stats,

That is incorrect. My responses have been on-topic and factual.

izzythepush wrote:

just the same tired, hackneyed responses.
It's like Groundhog Day where you say the same thing over and over again.

That's the thing about facts and reality. The truth in one post is still the truth in the next post.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Jamie Raskin obviously knows more about the 2nd Amendment than McGentrix does,

Nonsense.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

House passes bill banning certain semi-automatic guns
(AP)

Just goes to show. The left thinks that it's fun to violate people's civil liberties.

We all already knew that. But it was nice of them to provide a handy demonstration of their malice.

I'll have to bookmark your post for reference the next time a progressive tries to whitewash history.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

You can always tell when he gets back from vacation, line after line after line after line addressing every member who posted telling them (he) thinks they are stupid. Saves a lot of time.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

That's a lie. I seldom address people's intelligence unless they bring up the subject of intelligence themselves, or unless someone is so hopelessly lost that the best way to respond to them is to point out that they are just not smart enough to understand the subject.

You frequently have your intelligence commented on for both reasons. But that is not the nature of most of my posts.

Rather, most of my posts quote egregiously untrue comments and point out how they are untrue.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

I think the biggest problem is that he tends to use words he has no concept of, like reality.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue statement in any of my posts.

But like most people with a big mouth, your accusations are all talk. You never back up your accusations. You couldn't do so even if you tried.

Really, everything you ever say is a lie. Even on the extremely few occasions when you are addressing a thread subject instead of making personal attacks against posters, you are still lying even then. Note your lies about the NRA for example.

0 Replies

2 Replies

@Region Philbis,

I agree with withholding names of the accused.

Denying shooters fame may limit some of the urge these people feel to kill.

It would also prevent the wrongly accused from being lynched in the press.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Australian media renamed 'king hits' (giving a right or left hook to someone, in the head, from behind) to 'coward punch'. It was fairly effective in taking away 'glory' that our low-life's feel.

For the shooters, I wouldn't even refer to them as 'shooter'. Refer to them as coward.

If you want to keep track of the number - you can always make that a separate reference in the report

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The militia that Madison refers to is what is now the National Guard, organized and controlled by the states and the federal government.

The Framers intended that the militia would make a standing army unnecessary. The notion that a standing army can count as the militia goes clearly against this intent.

Since the National Guard are sworn members of the US Army, they are not the militia.

The Second Amendment calls for the good regulation of that militia.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The Second Amendment calls for the good regulation of that militia.

Is that all it does?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

The term "well-regulated militia" means that the militia in question is capable of fighting effectively because they act as a single unit (as opposed to fighting as a bunch of random individuals with no coordination).

Sort of like all of the gears in a "well-regulated watch" work together in unison to provide accurate time readings.

While some amount of military regulations are necessary in order for a militia to achieve this level of coordination, the term "well-regulated" means a lot more than just military regulations.

Essentially the first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always keep the militia in top fighting shape.

The government is violating this requirement because, Constitutionally-speaking, the militia does not even exist currently.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know