THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

ossobuco wrote:

I suppose I'll have to get a grip and review the last twelve or so pages.
Back in a bit.

Don't waste your time - I'll review for you. It's been a buncha mindless posturing noise about arming folks in schools by a buncha knuckle-dragging gun freaks, interspersed with sundry attempts at reason by everyone else.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The best response.

It would have been better yet for the little bigot to keep his hatred to himself in the first place.

Let's keep our peforatives in order, here. It was Blatham, not Intrepid, who referred to you and others like you as gun-obsessed and dickless.
Intrepid (and most others here, by the way) simply agreed with him.

It is a shame that Blatham is a bigot, but it is highly dishonest of you to pretend that others share your bigotry.

(Not that I expected you to be honest or ethical.)

snood wrote:

You're the only one here who looks hateful and bigotted.

Liar/Hypocrite.

snood wrote:

And forgive me for saying so, but also not too damn bright.

You shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.

(By the way dummy, if you want to try to pretend that other people are stupid, you should try to have someone intelligent proofread your posts.)

0 Replies

snood wrote:

knuckle-dragging gun freaks

You sure do hate civil rights.

0 Replies

It is NOT a civil right to own a gun. Simply because the Second Amendment saw the need for armed militias does not make it a civil right FOR INDIVIDUALS.

Oh and keep the 'betters' comments to yourself, there's a dear chap.

0 Replies

kiwimac wrote:

It is NOT a civil right to own a gun. Simply because the Second Amendment saw the need for armed militias does not make it a civil right FOR INDIVIDUALS.

The fact that individuals can be required to join a militia before exercising their Second Amendment rights does not mean that it isn't an individual civil right.

The amendment quite clearly requires the government to set up such militia, and once someone joined, they'd have the right as an individual.

The Supreme Court had a good ruling on that in 1939. I'll see if I can find a link to it.

kiwimac wrote:

Oh and keep the 'betters' comments to yourself, there's a dear chap.

When dunces and bigots start falsely accusing me of being like them, I think I have a right to put them in their place.

The best thing is for them to stop belching out their venom to begin with. Then I wouldn't have to respond to it.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

The Supreme Court had a good ruling on that in 1939. I'll see if I can find a link to it.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html

0 Replies

Here is another good source of material on the ruling:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller_compilation.html

0 Replies

A couple of hundred seized guns got melted down in our furnace today. What a beautiful sight. Makes me proud to work in the steel industry.

0 Replies

kiwimac wrote:

It is NOT a civil right to own a gun.

In fact it is. In fact any American government which suddenly started acting like they had any reason to refuse to recognize that right would be faced with a civil war and would deserve it.

In fact other nations need that sort of a civil right as well. In fact the populace being armed would have probably prevented the recent massacres in Rwanda. I mean, SlicKKK KKKlintler and his pals in the UN and the CFR sure as hell didn't do much for those guys.

In fact, being armed would likely end the situation in which thousands of Indians are killed by snakes annually. They could simply shoot the snakes.

In fact an armed populace DOES in fact prevent leftist wolf release programs from creating similar mayhem in the US. The people simply kill the wolves and don't tell the commie bastard fish/game dept. wonks about it.

In fact an armed populace simply saves the American people from untold suffering at the hands of criminals. In fact violent crime rates in England, Canada, and Australia have skyrocketed since the implementation of strict gun control laws in those countries and that is common knowledge.

Americans read with horror these stories about people sitting in British prisons for trying to defend themselves from armed intruders in thier own homes. I would not want to set foot in England until that situation is corrected. I view the place as a criminal-friendly environment.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

kiwimac wrote:
It is NOT a civil right to own a gun. Simply because the Second Amendment saw the need for armed militias does not make it a civil right FOR INDIVIDUALS.

The fact that individuals can be required to join a militia before exercising their Second Amendment rights does not mean that it isn't an individual civil right.

The amendment quite clearly requires the government to set up such militia,...

That's bullshit. The most major reason for the 2'nd ammendment is precisely to provide the people with a final bullwark AGAINST the government itself, should the government ever go out of control or become utterly tyranical, and pretty much all of the founding fathers are on record to that effect.

Moreover, the government having ANY sort of control over private ownership of arms is clearly incompatible with the intent of the law.

Recent judicial decisions have in fact recognized this reality.

The American people WOULD go to war over this one issue, and leftists had best come to terms with this reality. Americans ARE ready die defending this right, which they view as God given and superior to governments. The only real question for leftists and CFR types is, are you/they ready to die trying to take the right away from us?

0 Replies

Maybe you do the world a big favour...................die.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

blatham wrote:
Note the sexual-dominance braggadocio which underlies posts by oralloy, omsig, cjhsa and others.

Please grow real penises you are actually proud of, boys.

It isn't necessary for you to spew bigoted stereotypes like a Klan dragon.

Interesting charge. Moreso for the particular element excerpted as subject for the charge (my claim that the US demonstrates a pathological level of violence didn't merit inclusion). We also note the verb choice and the odd analogy.

Each one of the folks I mentioned above (plus some others) predictably write posts wherein America's proper stance in the world is imagined or portrayed as admirably aggressive, confident, broad-shouldered, take-no-guff, shoot first and ask questions later (or never), we are way tougher than everyone else, etc etc.

This tenor in your posts as inevitable as the morning sunrise. The sexual dominance (that is, desired dominance) characteristic of it is utterly impossible to miss.

Some men need a manly uniform to feel manly enough. Some need a manly weapon to feel manly enough. Some need to pretend that their flag and their group ought to represent warriorness, all erect and sturdy like a big dangerous boner.

0 Replies

Quote:

The only real question for leftists and CFR types is, are you/they ready to die trying to take the right away from us?

Are you gonna be holed up in an old anthracite mine?. If the CFR types come out after the militias, it wont be with a 30.06, itll be with an M1-A1 Abrams.

Just dont cause too much mayhem there gunga, people are still sleeping.

0 Replies

farmerman

A quiet and deeply sad tip of my hat to your community there.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

In fact an armed populace simply saves the American people from untold suffering at the hands of criminals. In fact violent crime rates in England, Canada, and Australia have skyrocketed since the implementation of strict gun control laws in those countries and that is common knowledge.

Americans read with horror these stories about people sitting in British prisons for trying to defend themselves from armed intruders in thier own homes. I would not want to set foot in England until that situation is corrected. I view the place as a criminal-friendly environment.

Rest assured Gunga you would never get passed immigration control.

0 Replies

Frankly,

I would argue that a civilised society limits the access of its populace to arms. It is one thing for a country like Switzerland to place arms in each home and then TRAIN folk to a military standard with them, including military standards of Fire-Arms safety and another thing entirely to say in effect " off you go, buy as many as you like, use them as you will." to all and sundry.

Kiwimac

0 Replies

Emminently reasonable, kiwimac.

0 Replies

Unfortunately, some don't want to hear the voice of reason.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Are you gonna be holed up in an old anthracite mine?. If the CFR types come out after the militias, it wont be with a 30.06, itll be with an M1-A1 Abrams.

Five or ten guys or one or two little militia groups, yeah, the Abrams wins. 40 Million guys with rifles it's nowhere near as obvious. You can't really LIVE in an Abrams tank.

0 Replies

You really think that there are 40 million of your kind? wow, I sure hope not. What would you eat? would you send out foraging groups to rob and plunder and murder the other 260 million?

It would be a short matter of time before youd all start shooting yourselves, I dont think that militias have things well sorted out especially in tactics and credos . Most of them are jokes , made up of erectile dysfunctionals who have a sociopathic need to impose their wills on others. In other words, theyre not much different from the despots they see behind every wall.

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know