Guns and Ammo readers are really that crazy

@farmerman,

ten grand says dave never served his country.

he's been way too busy serving hisself...

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The problem with the background check system is that the government has begun to use it to block the purchase of guns by people who should not be denied their right to have guns.
Therefore it is necessary to guarantee that people are able to freely purchase guns without being subjected to a background check.

no it isn't.
that's just selfish and stupid...

We will defend America's freedom from any assault that you make upon it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

why do you assert that?

I am unsure which assertion you are asking me to explain?

farmerman wrote:

Im a proud gun owner.

That does not make it OK that you support violating other people's gun rights for no reason. (In fact, it might make it worse.)

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I bet that thay think that when travon was slamming Zimmy 's head
on the cement, that Zimmy shud have COMPROMIZED with him.
I wonder how thay felt about our demand for unconditional surrender from the Japs?
or from the nazis? The essence of liberalism is compromize with the truth.

Actually we dropped our demand for Japan's unconditional surrender. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms.

The degree of resistance on Okinawa and Iwo Jima was such that we did not wish to experience the same intensity of resistance down the entire length of Honshu.

Unfortunately Japan was resistant to even a conditional surrender until the day after Nagasaki.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You might enjoy this:

0 Replies

I think what this guy is saying is that, when you see a liberal with a gun, the thing in the picture which is dangerous is liberalism, and not the gun....

0 Replies

@oralloy,

all or nothing sometimes results in nothing.

just sayin'...

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

youre all over the stove Davey.
Your hoping that if you throw some wet noodles
onto the wall, one or two will stick. Stop getting all fevered up,[???]
and try to stick with the argument at hand.

U mean the mental health of readers of Guns and Ammo ?
OK. What do u have to say about that??

farmerman wrote:

PS, how much time did you serve in the US military ?

2 years. Y or how is that relevant??

farmerman wrote:

OR are you one of the chicken hawks who believe that a "Thnks for your service"
will undo all the criminal orders from host of US presidents
who get hrd-ons by sending the kids into harms way.

WHICH crimes do u have in mind???
Which statutes were violated ?
R u complaining about the
military conscription of Lincoln and Roosevelt ?
I did not put them up to it.

farmerman wrote:

I Imgine that you served not one fuckin day

Thank u for telling us what u "Imagine";
I 'm sure that everyone wanted to know what u "Imagine".

farmerman wrote:

and now you act like the god of liberty himself.

Thank u; I do my best, within reason.

farmerman wrote:

Youre a fraud Davey, a little wizened old fuckin fraud

What deception do u have in mind?????

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

ten grand says dave never served his country.

he's been way too busy serving hisself...

U 'r gonna pay me ten grand??? Really?

David

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

An editor published a fairly innocuous opinion piece suggesting that,
although the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, maybe

a little regulation like a waiting period before buying a gun, would be ok. . . .

A guy cud get killed
while he is "waiting", to say nothing about countenancing USURPATIONS of power by the government.
U fail to mention any punishment of the government
for those usurpations, as if it were OK to rape the Bill of Rights.
What punishments do u have in mind for the infliction of gun control??
Usurpations of power are much worse than relatively harmless
felonies like taking bribes (or Nixon covering up), because citizens can get killed
as a result of those un-Constitutional incursions upon their rights.
Sadly, the Founders did not include punishments in the Constitution for that.
I wish that the Authors of the Constitution had created a court
dedicated particularly to punishing holders of public office
for violating the Constitution, if personal liberty suffered for that.
Loss of all pensions, benefits and forfeiture of 65% of all their worldly possesssions
+ 5O years to 65 years at hard labor, as a penalty for the first offense woud be suitable.
Justices of that court woud have to swear to be ultra-Orthodox in their interpretations of the Constitution from the historical standpoint of the Authors.

I remember reading of 2 women in different states who were
threatened by ex-boyfriends or husbands. One legally bought a
defensive gun. Her ex-guy broke in on her thru a window
and tried to kill her with a knife; fortunately, she killed him with her gun.

The other woman got her gun license in the mail enabling her to legally buy a defensive gun.
The day before it arrived in the mail, she was killed, as promised by her ex-guy.
Gun control protects murderers. Gun control has been lethal.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That does not make it OK that you support violating other people's gun rights for no reason. (In fact, it might make it worse.)

It is OK to decide whether we allow EVERYONE to own and carry with little regqrd to their mentl state.
We also hve extremely liberal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that need some clipping.

The gun nuts seem to want to take this country down in anarchy when the rest of the CIVILIZED world doesn't have the same level of problems that we do . We hve more gun murders in a major US city IN ONE WEEK, than do several combined countries of Europe in an
entire year. Yet you and Dave seem to want to turn a blind eye.
Carrying guns isn't a way to stop the violence . Its a surrender to anarchy.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That does not make it OK that you support violating other people's gun rights for no reason. (In fact, it might make it worse.)

It is OK to decide whether we allow EVERYONE to own and carry with little regqrd to their mentl state.
We also hve extremely liberal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that need some clipping.

The gun nuts seem to want to take this country down in anarchy when the rest of the CIVILIZED world doesn't have the same level of problems that we do . We hve more gun murders in a major US city IN ONE WEEK, than do several combined countries of Europe in an
entire year. Yet you and Dave seem to want to turn a blind eye.
Carrying guns isn't a way to stop the violence . Its a surrender to anarchy.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That does not make it OK that you support violating other people's gun rights for no reason. (In fact, it might make it worse.)

It is OK to decide whether we allow EVERYONE to own and carry with little regard to their mentl state.
We also hve extremely liberal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that need some clipping.

The gun nuts seem to want to take this country down in anarchy when the rest of the CIVILIZED world doesn't have the same level of problems that we do . We hve more gun murders in a major US city IN ONE WEEK, than do several combined countries of Europe in an
entire year. Yet you and Dave seem to want to turn a blind eye.
Carrying guns isn't a way to stop the violence . Its a surrender to anarchy.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

That does not make it OK that you support violating other people's gun rights
for no reason. (In fact, it might make it worse.)

That authority was withheld from government at its creation, as a condition of its existence,
the same as government has no authority to make u go to Church if u wanna stay home n sleep, whether u r sane or not.

farmerman wrote:

It is OK to decide whether we allow EVERYONE to own and carry with little regard to their mentl state.

U have NO AUTHORITY to interfere;
its not within your discretion. Its not a question of whether u "allow".

farmerman wrote:

We also hve extremely liberal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that need some clipping.

On the Aristotelian Square of Logical Opposition, it is a Universal Negative proposition:
"the right . . . shall not be infringed."
A conservative, orthodox and historically accurate interpretation
is that any citizen 's gun possession is beyond the reach of jurisdiction
(but an un-lawfully dangerous person can be isolated,
incarcerated for his earlier crimes, armed or not).

farmerman wrote:

The gun nuts seem to want to take this country down in anarchy
when the rest of the CIVILIZED world doesn't have the same level of problems that we do.

Even if that were true: the Bill of Rights remains IMMUNE and remains INTACT.
The aliens do not live in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

farmerman wrote:

We hve more gun murders in a major US city IN ONE WEEK,

Most of that is attributable to turf wars among drug gangs
and unique to one particular race.
The decent people remain immune, in large part; not 1OO%

farmerman wrote:

than do several combined countries of Europe in an
entire year. Yet you and Dave seem to want to turn a blind eye.
Carrying guns isn't a way to stop the violence . Its a surrender to anarchy.

I don 't wanna bad mouth anarchy,
but regardless, note the State of Vermont which has NEVER had
gun laws and it has a long standing very low rate of crime,
at or near the best States, according the FBI annual crime statistics.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

What a stupendous lie! Has there ever been a bigger lie?

Those from the home of the brave kill women and children from 35,000 feet in the air, from the safety of their drone home, with guns against those who have none, with chemical weapons spread over innocents' lands, with their terrorist bombs, with their terrorist actions, raping and torturing, - land of the brave indeed.

And the home of the "free" aren't allowed by their government to visit Cuba.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

all or nothing sometimes results in nothing.
just sayin'...

I remind you that you guys are the ones who chose all or nothing, with your headlong push to violate America's civil rights for no reason.

And indeed you guys are getting nothing. Obama wasted every last bit of his political capital on this fiasco, and now he will not achieve any legislation in his second term.

After four years of a do-nothing presidency, the voters are going to hand the White House back to the Republicans in 2016.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
That does not make it OK that you support violating other people's gun rights for no reason.

It is OK to decide whether we allow EVERYONE to own and carry with little regard to their mentl state.

Perhaps, but it is not OK for you to support violating people's civil rights for no reason.

farmerman wrote:

We also hve extremely liberal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that need some clipping.

You will fail in every attempt to harm our freedom.

farmerman wrote:

The gun nuts seem to want to take this country down in anarchy

Preventing the Freedom Haters from violating our civil rights is hardly anarchy.

farmerman wrote:

when the rest of the CIVILIZED world doesn't have the same level of problems that we do.

Cherry picking stats by arbitrarily labeling selected nations as "civilized" does not result in good data.

farmerman wrote:

We have more gun murders in a major US city IN ONE WEEK, than do several combined countries of Europe in an entire year.

Does being killed with a gun make someone "more dead" than if they had been killed without a gun?

farmerman wrote:

Yet you and Dave seem to want to turn a blind eye.

Bogus stats are best ignored.

Plus, recall that this recently-defeated gun control push was not about preventing gun violence. The primary goal was to violate people's civil rights for no reason.

farmerman wrote:

Carrying guns isn't a way to stop the violence. Its a surrender to anarchy.

We have the right to carry guns if we choose to do so.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We hve more gun murders in a major US city IN ONE WEEK, than do several combined countries of Europe in an
entire year. Yet you and Dave seem to want to turn a blind eye.

Farmer, I wanna be clear on this:
Even IF your statistical allegations were dispositively proven,
I 'd still ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to grant government any authority to enact gun control.
I will not negotiate my freedom to effectively fight back
against the predatory violence of man or beast.
The Authors of the Supreme Law of the Land and I are of the same mind on this point.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Farmer, I wanna be clear on this:
Even IF your statistical allegations were dispositively proven,
I 'd still ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to grant government any authority to enact gun control.

Totally agree. The 2'nd amendment is there primarily to protect the people from government(s). That goal is simply not compatible with allowing government to regulate firearms or other weaponry.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

"the voters are going to hand the White House back to the Republicans in 2016. "

really...?

who is your candidate?

1 Reply

Guns and Ammo readers are really that crazy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know