Michael Moore on the Election

like Army Intelligence

You're the one frothing at the mouth. I'm not a Liberal, never voted Liberal, never will.

We don't need guns, and we don't want our police routinely armed either. You don't really need them either, you're just scared that if they take them away there's nothing left, (nothing with a backbone anyway.)

So I'm going to assume that you live in the UK... Correct me if I'm wrong... And you're telling me that your police do not have guns? Because if that's what your saying we know you're full of crapola.
As far as not needing guns I beg to differ because without the Second Amendment there's no way to protect the other nine.

You really do have comprehension problems. This is what I wrote.



That doesn't mean that none of our police are armed, it means those who are are specialists. And they're actually trained how to use them properly which is why police shooting incidents are so low.

As for the rest of your post pure bollocks. Do you really think a bunch of NRA sadsacks would stand a chance against the most powerful military in the World? Guns just make your country less safe, what protects your democracy is the ballot box.

You're the liar. She said clearly last night. She supports the 2nd Amendment. She doesn't want to take your gun away. She wasn't to close the gun show loophole and prevent people on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun.

I own 3 guns and I, like most gun owners and even more Americans, agree with those two measures.

So the close to 15,000 incidences of authorized use of firearms in in England and Wales in 2015 seems to me to be a little bit more than routine.

Okay now everybody who believes Hillary Clinton stand on their head... She will say anything to get into that office. But what we do know is that she said she will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Where's your source for that suspiciously round figure? The only time I've ever seen armed police was when I visited the Houses of Parliament. And I'm no spring chicken.

The home office report issued July 28th 2016... The number was 14753 up from 2012 where were 12550.

Weapons were fired on 6 occasions. I see you left that part out.

Still no link, and Contrex has nailed why. You just can't debate anything honestly because the facts are all against you.

Without his gun to give him "courage" gui would have migrate to the mountains and find himself the deepest darkest hole to hide in.

His particular brand of nonsense may go down well with his cronies but Contrex and I both live in the UK. We know when utter nonsense is being spouted about British gun incidents.

You're right, take away his gun and there's nothing left.

Utter babble-speak--you really don't have the slightest clue how the government of the United States actually works. Your view of the powers of the presidency, for example, are the political equivalent of religious superstitions. Many tens of millions of Americans know how the government works--you just don't happen to be one of them.

your use of "2nd amendment protection" is an example of how people of limited intellect can be sucked in by their spokespeople and the NRA. Hows it like being inna pocket of an entire industry??

2nd A has a vital place. The uniform Firearms act of 1935 still stands nd the NRA douche bags seem to NOT foster any challenges since that may open exceptions to control even deeper than the control of dangerous qeapons.

I have many guns and feel personally responsible that noone other than those I invite, cancontact them or fire them. The gun "brandishers" merely repeat their silly mantra of unrestricted gun ownership and use and call that protection .

They dont insure that they have a similr sense of responsibility. The NRA (when I was a member years ago), posted about gun safety, sportsman use, safety etc. Theyve just overboarded that in fvor of the GOP based mantra of that 2nd amendment "protection" (Their extreme paranoia shows like some crazed hillbilly militia member).

As I said many times, itll be generational but sooner or later there WILL be defined and reasonable limitations of ownership by those who ould do harm nd , I think, that the right of ownership will have an accompanied duties of use, that dont exist in a real fashion today

This is the most recent article on police use of guns in the UK. Note a link is given.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-police-shooting-statistics-discharge-firearms-figures-freddie-gray-baton-killings-homicide-a7160391.html<br />

its a bloody massacre!.

Here's another civics lesson for the politically superstitious members here, like the teabaggers. The president cannot appoint the Federal bench; the president cannot appoint Supreme Court justices; the president cannot appoint executive branch officers. The president can only nominate the Federal bench, Supreme Court justices and executive branch officers. Only the Senate has the power to appoint the Federal bench, Supreme Court justices and executive branch officers, who have been nominated by the president. The Senate can choose to refuse to appoint any nominee, and frequently has in these 227 years.

This is not a history lesson. These provisions of the constitution are in effect today, and have been since March, 1789. This is a civics lesson, a lesson in how your government actually works. The claims that teabaggers make about what a president can or will do are superstition on the same level as a voo-doo witch doctors ooga-booga ranting. Really, listening to the crap they peddle is like asking a kindergarten class how the government works.