PDA

View Full Version : Colorado Sheriff calls out Obama after visit


Pages : [1] 2

IHaveALight
04-05-2013, 11:57 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mlwgZzeq8oI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 12:05 PM
And.

Rabb
04-05-2013, 12:07 PM
this should end well

pricejj
04-05-2013, 12:22 PM
The man speaks the truth. It's about time people start speaking up.

Unfortunately, none of the media outlets will show it, as they are too busy pumping out their daily progressive liberal agenda.

schaaf
04-05-2013, 12:25 PM
Prepare your anus sheriff, there are a lot of liberals in Colorado.

pricejj
04-05-2013, 12:37 PM
Prepare your anus sheriff, there are a lot of liberals in Colorado.

Not in Elbert County there aren't. Plus, like he said, sherriff's are locally elected.

I'm glad the Sherrif's departments in El Paso and Elbert counties are making a stand. It helps me to know that there actually are some elected officials in Colorado who stand for the U.S. Constitution.

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 12:42 PM
You guys act as if background checks/gun regulations is unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already ruled that guns can regulated,including the ban of ARs.

schaaf
04-05-2013, 12:44 PM
I'm curious as to what your take on the political influence is in Colorado guys. I'm assuming its a lot like Montana in that the people that have lived there their whole lives are pretty traditional and for the most part are on the conservative side and the influx of californians and college students to the western state has really affected the political situation in Montana

Bigdawg26
04-05-2013, 12:51 PM
The man speaks the truth. It's about time people start speaking up.

Unfortunately, none of the media outlets will show it, as they are too busy pumping out their daily progressive liberal agenda.

Have u not seen Fox news?? That channel is full of hypocritical, elitist, borderline racist, and conservative BS! This footage could fill a day of Fox News reports. They would love this. Those guys HATE Obama on that network.

Lestat
04-05-2013, 12:57 PM
everyone has some issue with him and it's always someone with an agenda.

ludo21
04-05-2013, 01:12 PM
ouch... well wisdom is needed and he is right the bad guys dont play by the rules, they just steal or buy guns from law abiding people..

OBF1
04-05-2013, 01:15 PM
Have u not seen Fox news?? That channel is full of hypocritical, elitist, borderline racist, and conservative BS! This footage could fill a day of Fox News reports. They would love this. Those guys HATE Obama on that network.

I am going to have to start watching Fox. Thanks for the heads up :thumbs:

pricejj
04-05-2013, 01:23 PM
I'm curious as to what your take on the political influence is in Colorado guys. I'm assuming its a lot like Montana in that the people that have lived there their whole lives are pretty traditional and for the most part are on the conservative side and the influx of californians and college students to the western state has really affected the political situation in Montana

Yep, you got it. The problem is so many people (especially women) are easily influenced by what they watch on TV, and what they read in the newspaper. All the major media outlets are controlled by the progressive liberal machine, and they bombard you with it constantly every single day...from the morning news to the nightly news.

When Bush was in office, every single news story was about the war in Afghanistan. Now, every single news story is about banning guns, even though Colorado has the lowest homicide rate of any state. They even bring up 2-year old murders, if they aren't talking about Aurora Theater.

Every story they do is made in order to twist public sentiment towards their agenda, whether it's "free" B/C's, gay marriage, banning guns, global warming, etc. It's all about increasing their power and controlling people.

I had hope for Colorado, all the way up until the 2012 elections. Now I don't. Welfare states create dependency that spreads like a disease.

ScottXray
04-05-2013, 01:33 PM
Elbert County is a rural , farming and ranching county, SouthEast of Denver
and East of I 25. It is loaded with conservative ranchers, etc., and upper income weekend ranchers and horse property owners. There is also significant hunting and game .

Like most states, the heavily Urban population around Denver controls the state vote, as about 85% of the state population is concentrated there. The same type of demographic occurs in most western states.

Unless they start apportioning representatives in state legislatures based on geographic areas of counties rather than population, the trend will continue to go towards the Dems, unless the Republicans wake up and smell the coffee. Stop pissing off the very voters you need to take urban areas ( women, gays , latinos and other minorities.)

LetsGoBroncos
04-05-2013, 01:40 PM
The man speaks the truth. It's about time people start speaking up.

Unfortunately, none of the media outlets will show it, as they are too busy pumping out their daily progressive liberal agenda.

Exactly.

LetsGoBroncos
04-05-2013, 01:43 PM
Have u not seen Fox news?? That channel is full of hypocritical, elitist, borderline racist, and conservative BS! This footage could fill a day of Fox News reports. They would love this. Those guys HATE Obama on that network.

And what is your take on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN? They all do the exact opposite. They hate on Republicans and don't report on any negative news that could hurt obama.

Today's job news confirms what I have been saying for 2 years. The real unemployment number is between 12-15% when you count the people that have quit looking for a job.

Keep supporting him though. History will show that his policies were failures. I just fear we won't ever be able to dig out of the hole we are creating with the debt where it is.

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-05-2013, 01:51 PM
What's hilarious is the fact that some of these dems don't even know how a magazine is used.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticaloutcast.com%2F2013%2F04% 2Fcolorado-democrat-displays-firearm-ignorance%2F&ei=HTlfUYrdCaPniwKM6oDADQ&usg=AFQjCNGfa6COMospYcenQXFdWJDRgLfjFA

enjolras
04-05-2013, 01:52 PM
Yep, you got it. The problem is so many people (especially women) are easily influenced by what they watch on TV, and what they read in the newspaper. All the major media outlets are controlled by the progressive liberal machine, and they bombard you with it constantly every single day...from the morning news to the nightly news.

Are you f***ing serious?

:kiddingme:kiddingme:(

Requiem
04-05-2013, 01:54 PM
People talking about the mainstream media and pointing fingers (like in this thread) are the the ones that have the "problem" and are encouraging it. Too many people with many proud biases who lean and cling on certain issues to justify their stances and beliefs when they fail to realize a full-scale reform at the federal level of this country is needed. Anyone in here actually taken a course or done serious research about bias in the media and the prism(s) it encompasses from an ideological standpoint? And JFC, most places that report the media don't "shy" away from having a bias. They know they do. . .

Instead of running to FAUX, MSNBC and all those other shill organizations, try actually getting involved in the political process, locally or at a state level (or anything with some sort of structure) and actually find out how **** works. Read a book, get an education and understand how **** actually works. Unfortunately, our country is one of the least educated populations in the "first world" in regards to civics and we have created a culture where people give more ****s about American Idol than they would ever care about understanding their role in government or place in the country.

Dumb****s everywhere.

enjolras
04-05-2013, 01:55 PM
Don't get me wrong.. the rest of the whole thing is completely and fantastically retarded. The "liberal media conspiracy" is a complete myth. This is a media that essentially turned on Al Gore during a presidential election, gave Bush a free pass on fact checking ahead of the Iraq war, and routinely gives conservative positions "equal time" no matter how ridiculous they are (reporting the "controversy" on global warming springs to mind).

The incredibly shrill far right has developed a bizarre victimization complex. I guess it's just too hard being a white man in this country.

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 01:57 PM
Are you ****ing serious?

:kiddingme:kiddingme:(

lol

There are idiots on both side of the isle.

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-05-2013, 02:00 PM
Don't get me wrong.. the rest of the whole thing is completely and fantastically retarded. The "liberal media conspiracy" is a complete myth. This is a media that essentially turned on Al Gore during a presidential election, gave Bush a free pass on fact checking ahead of the Iraq war, and routinely gives conservative positions "equal time" no matter how ridiculous they are (reporting the "controversy" on global warming springs to mind).

The incredibly shrill far right has developed a bizarre victimization complex. I guess it's just too hard being a white man in this country.

This has to be the most naive post I've ever seen on this website. Ya I'm sure the NYtimes msnbc etc loves to report something that favors a conservative point of view.

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 02:00 PM
Don't get me wrong.. the rest of the whole thing is completely and fantastically retarded. The "liberal media conspiracy" is a complete myth. This is a media that essentially turned on Al Gore during a presidential election, gave Bush a free pass on fact checking ahead of the Iraq war, and routinely gives conservative positions "equal time" no matter how ridiculous they are (reporting the "controversy" on global warming springs to mind).

The incredibly shrill far right has developed a bizarre victimization complex. I guess it's just too hard being a white man in this country.

Depends on who you ask. MSNBC veers left and FOX veers right. CNN is fluff. BBC is good, but it's never on. Print media trends left, with a couple exceptions and radio media trends right with a couple of exceptions.

The bottom line is that ALL media is funded by advertising, so they're all going to trend towards pushing a corporate agenda. I don't think that is either right or left. Every company that advertises is trying to grab as much as they can - corporate welfare - but the right plays into it just as much.

It's bad for the economy in the long-run.

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 02:01 PM
This has to be the most naive post I've ever seen on this website. Ya I'm sure the NYtimes msnbc etc loves to report something that favors a conservative point of view.

David Brooks and Karl Rove write for the New York Times... just sayin.

Blart
04-05-2013, 02:03 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png


Want more statistics? Sorry, the NRA lobbies to stop all gun studies (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms), they stop all data collection (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), and put barriers to information sharing (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/80518462.html). The NRA's biggest fear is an informed public (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check).

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 02:06 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png

I'm an economist.... I love love love linear regression models.

This doesn't seem as correlative as the line function would imply. I'd like to know the r-squared and p-value of this regression. Judging by the outliers, I think this has as much to do with homogeneity/education/quality of life as it does gun ownership.

Requiem
04-05-2013, 02:10 PM
South Dakota and North Dakota = high ownership of guns and people aren't dying. . . but now teachers can pack heat in schools in SD. Wonder when the first tragedy will happen.

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 02:12 PM
I'm convinced that extreme wealth disparity (the worst in the world) makes America the most violent country in the world.

Blart
04-05-2013, 02:14 PM
I'm convinced that extreme wealth disparity (the worst in the world) makes America the most violent country in the world.

This. If only because it's backed up with mountains of studies and data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Crime).

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 02:16 PM
I'm convinced that extreme wealth disparity (the worst in the world) makes America the most violent country in the world.

That's kind of what I implied with homogeneity... and it plays a huge factor in it. It's only true to a certain extent, though. There can be perfect equality, and if everyone is starving, there will still be violence.

Wealth disparity isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would rather be a poor 50k where my boss makes 1million than a wealthy 10k in South Sudan.

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2013, 02:19 PM
I'm an economist.... I love love love linear regression models.

This doesn't seem as correlative as the line function would imply. I'd like to know the r-squared and p-value of this regression. Judging by the outliers, I think this has as much to do with homogeneity/education/quality of life as it does gun ownership.

Wyoming's the least populated state in the union, for example, there's more people living in the Colorado Springs, CO metro area than in the entire state of Wyoming.

So I'd take this Mother Jone's graph with a grain of salt.

Blart
04-05-2013, 02:20 PM
There can be perfect equality, and if everyone is starving, there will still be violence.


Much less violence than in an unequal society. I'd link the studies, but you have to pay (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235298000646) for them (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/016396299266588). RIP Aaron Schwartz.

yerner
04-05-2013, 02:29 PM
I'm convinced that extreme wealth disparity (the worst in the world) makes America the most violent country in the world.

Sounds about right.

That sheriff sucks on tv. Sounds like a date rapist.

broncocalijohn
04-05-2013, 02:33 PM
Are you ****ing serious?

:kiddingme:kiddingme:(

You actually questioning his comment? Women watch daytime soaps and shows like Ricki Lake and Oz to get their information. My wife has no clue about important issues like North Korea because "I don't want to hear about bad things as I want to wind down from work". This is pretty much the norm. Women are easily influenced by shows like this. I am sure someone can pull up demographics to back it up.

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 02:33 PM
Wyoming's the least populated state in the union, for example, there's more people living in the Colorado Springs, CO metro area than in the entire state of Wyoming.

So I'd take this Mother Jone's graph with a grain of salt.

The data sample is still in the hundreds of thousands, which is plenty of data to make an argument. THe whole data cluster is borrowed fro ma sample size of 300 million. I'd say it's pretty reliable.

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 02:35 PM
Since 1980, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States has lost about a quarter of its manufacturing jobs. Between 1990 and 2000 CEO pay increased 570 percent. The average worker’s salary, however, increased only 34 percent. Of the total increase in all American income from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent went to the top one percent. The wealth of that top one percent of Americans now exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent. America has the worst wealth distribution of any first-world nation. Income distribution in the United States, as Timothy Noah put it in a 2010 piece he wrote for Slate, is now “more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador.”

----------------------

A culture that breeds revolt is one in which a vast army of ill-paid and largely miserable people toils in service to a soulless corporate institution or a few very wealthy people. The message this sends is that anyone outside of the top tier of American movers and shakers is not experiencing some temporary economic setback but, rather, is in some way fundamentally and irrevocably inferior. (“If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself”) This is a trap from which the eventual perpetrators feel they have no way out. Confined by his lack of power, the “crazed” gunman fixates on exercising what little power he does have.

----------------------------------

As societies become more inequitable, they become more violent. That’s because gross inequities in wealth make people feel angry and impotent and irrelevant. Their sense of powerlessness is ratified and reinforced by a culture and economic system in which the small group of winners feels morally justified in dismissing the large and growing number of losers (“There are 47 percent who … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. … I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/12/postal_its_not_really_about_th041920.php

pricejj
04-05-2013, 02:35 PM
I'm convinced that extreme wealth disparity (the worst in the world) makes America the most violent country in the world.

It's too bad the Obama regime has skyrocketed the inflation of assets...putting real wealth out of reach of average Americans.

It's all part of his liberal progressive plan to put control of the masses into the hands of few.

enjolras
04-05-2013, 02:36 PM
This has to be the most naive post I've ever seen on this website. Ya I'm sure the NYtimes msnbc etc loves to report something that favors a conservative point of view.

I disagree, and therefore I'm naive. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into one of these again. It'll be yet another argument in which facts are refuted with feelings, and the whole thing just goes nowhere. I just wich Mock were hear to threaten to hit me in the face with a rifle.

It took me 3 seconds to type in "msnbc.com" and find this, right on the front page.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/05/17616402-boehner-obama-holding-entitlement-reform-hostage-for-tax-hikes?lite

It pretty much outlines Boehners view, and directly quotes him. I have no idea how you spin this to be somehow be "liberally biased". This from what is supposedly the liberal answer to Fox news.

Oh right above it?

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/04/05/17618721-obama-apologizes-to-kamala-harris-for-best-looking-attorney-general-comment?lite

Which is an article describing a controversy that puts Obama in a negative light. Something they could have easily buried or ignored, yet it's right in the damn center.

Many conservatives just don't seem to understand how extreme their viewpoints really are. They interpret EVERYTHING to have a liberal bias, because the facts simply don't line up with their worldview. A positive story about Obama? LIBERAL BIAS! A positive story about the economy? LIBERAL BIAS! Anything positive anywhere at all? LIBERAL BIAS!

*sighs*

Whatever, I long ago decided that I will no longer argue with brick walls. I'm leaving this thread, I have bigger things to do with my life.

broncocalijohn
04-05-2013, 02:36 PM
lol

There are idiots on both side of the isle.

especially those that don't spell "aisle" correctly. :giggle:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png


Want more statistics? Sorry, the NRA lobbies to stop all gun studies (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms), they stop all data collection (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), and put barriers to information sharing (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/80518462.html). The NRA's biggest fear is an informed public (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check).

By your graph, it seems the Dakotas and surrounding states have a good supply of guns but are completely missing their targets. At least Montana has their **** (and aim) together!

ludo21
04-05-2013, 02:38 PM
I'm convinced that extreme wealth disparity (the worst in the world) makes America the most violent country in the world.

unfortunate truth....

Seems Mexico is the same way as well (not that this is a good thing either)

pricejj
04-05-2013, 02:41 PM
You actually questioning his comment? Women watch daytime soaps and shows like Ricki Lake and Oz to get their information. My wife has no clue about important issues like North Korea because "I don't want to hear about bad things as I want to wind down from work". This is pretty much the norm. Women are easily influenced by shows like this. I am sure someone can pull up demographics to back it up.

My fiancee thought everyone deserved "free healthcare" until I told her somebody actually had to pay for it.

Most of her friends believe the same thing. It's amazing how much a simple explanation of the facts makes a difference. It's a shame that such a large percentage of Americans simply don't understand the ruinous policies of the liberal progressive regime.

Blart
04-05-2013, 02:45 PM
I always get my news & opinions directly from the police

http://p.twimg.com/AtcXmNmCIAIgSXC.jpg:large

http://www.vagandopelaweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/pinheirinho-spray-crian%C3%A7a.jpg


http://tincuetchento.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/riot_cop_kicks.gif

http://www.menworld.cz/system/files/imagecache/preview/behaviour16.jpg

http://cdn.acidcow.com/pics/20101201/gif_05.gif

http://i2.asntown.net/11/turkish_police__super_fail.gif

Blart
04-05-2013, 02:53 PM
My fiancee thought everyone deserved "free healthcare" until I told her somebody actually had to pay for it.


Sweety, if you had "free" healthcare, the wealthiest people in the world might have to skip on the langoustines next time they eat out. You wouldn't want to deny someone a tasty appetizer, would you?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8pk6nAolj1rb86ldo1_400.jpg (http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/the-rich-kids-of-instagram)

pricejj
04-05-2013, 03:02 PM
Sweety, if you had "free" healthcare, the wealthiest people in the world might have to skip on the langoustines next time they eat out. You wouldn't want to deny someone a tasty appetizer, would you?


Honey child please, I could care less how much Bill Gates spends on dinner. Like most Americans, I only want to be able to provide for my family, and hope that they can live and prosper better than I have, after I'm gone.

DarkHorse30
04-05-2013, 03:22 PM
Have u not seen MSNBC?? That channel is full of hypocritical, elitist, borderline racist, and liberal BS! This footage could fill a day of MSNBC tea party hating reports. They would love this. Those guys HATE Bush or anybody that disagrees with them on that network.

fixed it for you

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 03:28 PM
It's too bad the Obama regime has skyrocketed the inflation of assets...putting real wealth out of reach of average Americans.

It's all part of his liberal progressive plan to put control of the masses into the hands of few.

It's too bad this current trend of skyrocketing disparity started under Reagan and is directly related to his policies.

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 03:34 PM
especially those that don't spell "aisle" correctly. :giggle:



By your graph, it seems the Dakotas and surrounding states have a good supply of guns but are completely missing their targets. At least Montana has their **** (and aim) together!

I was referring to the Isle of Man... an island west of the UK, meaning you find dumb people in both the US and Europe ;)

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2013, 03:40 PM
The data sample is still in the hundreds of thousands, which is plenty of data to make an argument. THe whole data cluster is borrowed fro ma sample size of 300 million. I'd say it's pretty reliable.

It's the conclusions from the data that I think are what will be wrong. Again, it shows Wyoming at the top of the graph so it's saying that Wyoming has the most gun deaths from guns due to the most gun ownership. But the reality is that even though there are more guns per capita in Wyoming, there's not more violent crime. Yes, people tend to commit suicide in Wyoming (you should see this place, it's depressing as hell) and there are more suicides in places like Montana and Colorado. This of course is due to the fact that people move to the mountains, thinking they are going to change there lives and live happily ever after and then reality hits, they get depressed and kill themsleves. A lot of the time with guns.

In other words, Mother Jones wants everyone to draw conclusions from their chart that may not be reality.

pricejj
04-05-2013, 03:48 PM
It's too bad this current trend of skyrocketing disparity started under Reagan and is directly related to his policies.

By the time Obama is done, he will have added more federal debt than all other presidents before him combined.

LonghornBronco
04-05-2013, 03:49 PM
Never thought there were so many backward thinking Bronco fans.

http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Horsey-cartoon-courtesy-latimes.com_.jpg

DarkHorse30
04-05-2013, 03:49 PM
Don't get me wrong.. the rest of the whole thing is completely and fantastically retarded. The "liberal media conspiracy" is a complete myth.....based on your view, as a liberal? We agree to disagree
This is a media that essentially turned on Al Gore during a presidential election how so? by not pressing the issue of his father's (and a lot of southern democrats http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1300/who-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964) problem with the civil rights act of 1964? gave Bush a free pass on fact checking ahead of the Iraq war, because of wmd? interesting groups of quotes here, if you are interested http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm wow this playbook of yours is and routinely gives conservative positions "equal time" no matter how ridiculous they are really? calling them "ridiculous" while reporting them isn't exactly the "equal time" I was interested in(reporting the "controversy" on global warming springs to mind). apparently, the jury is still out on man-made global warming http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/19/the-feverish-hunt-for-evidence-of-a-man-made-global-warming-crisis/

The incredibly shrill far right has developed a bizarre victimization complex. I guess it's just too hard being a white man in this country. Do you enjoy being racist? Or is it bigotry, I forget...

LonghornBronco
04-05-2013, 03:53 PM
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2013/01/16/65/22/lk011713_color.jpg

OBF1
04-05-2013, 03:57 PM
I blame you white people!!!

HighCountryBronco
04-05-2013, 04:39 PM
I'm curious as to what your take on the political influence is in Colorado guys. I'm assuming its a lot like Montana in that the people that have lived there their whole lives are pretty traditional and for the most part are on the conservative side and the influx of californians and college students to the western state has really affected the political situation in Montana

You hit it dead on.

ant1999e
04-05-2013, 05:03 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fbel4SASUPQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jason7730
04-05-2013, 05:07 PM
^WOW

baja
04-05-2013, 05:19 PM
Bravo Bravo Bravo

It warms my heart to see a young officer of the law who is both awake to the problem and brave enough to make his statement while in uniform. I pray there are many move officers of the law that see through the systematic attack on the freedoms of this great nation.

I salute you Patriot!

Paladin
04-05-2013, 05:25 PM
Sheriff Smith of Larimer County says a lot of crap. He doesn't want gun control because his buddies in the Patriot Militia need to get those Bushmasters so they can go to training in the mountains and in Idaho to play "Army". It's a load of crap. I don't care if people have guns or shotguns to go hunting. But when the nutjobs and the paranoid and the tough-guy wannabes want those weapons to either kill or pretend to kill people, that's out of bounds. The Second Amendment was enacted to maintain "well regulated militias", and the hometown militias are not "well regulated". Most are full nutjobs like Nichols and the OK bomber.

Some gun control is necessary, and I think all the recall efforts - if they try them - will fail.

Bronkota
04-05-2013, 05:26 PM
Bravo Bravo Bravo

It warms my heart to see a young officer of the law who is both awake to the problem and brave enough to make his statement while in uniform. I pray there are many move officers of the law that see through the systematic attack on the freedoms of this great nation.

I salute you Patriot!

Nail on the head Baja!! :thumbs:

baja
04-05-2013, 05:31 PM
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2013/01/16/65/22/lk011713_color.jpg

You should watch and more importantly listen to the vid in the OP.

You didn't did ya.

Requiem
04-05-2013, 05:56 PM
Sheriff made some good points, but when on a lot of tangents and logical fallacies and doesn't offer any solutions himself. Just tries to regurgitate big words and repeats himself. Overly verbose. Wanna get real, Sheriff? Come up with some solutions on your own or actually state them instead of blaming Obama and leftist politicians using fear mongering, which was pretty much what your whole video was. Lol. What a turdlicker.

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2013, 06:06 PM
Sheriff made some good points, but when on a lot of tangents and logical fallacies and doesn't offer any solutions himself. Just tries to regurgitate big words and repeats himself. Overly verbose. Wanna get real, Sheriff? Come up with some solutions on your own or actually state them instead of blaming Obama and leftist politicians using fear mongering, which was pretty much what your whole video was. Lol. What a turdlicker.

Nah, he made some very lucid points but the fact is liberals don't want to hear solutions outside of more laws that only affect the general population and not the criminal element. He stated how the shootings in Connecticut were done by someone who killed his mother and then took her guns to perpetrate the crime. So, the crazy kid killed someone in order to kill others. So crazy kid started the mass killings by committing a crime. That crime was "don't murder" but that's exactly what the kid did in order to commit other killings. Again, broken law. The cop in the video also says punish the criminals and he then gives an example of how taking away capital punishment for a violent offender while at the same time enacting punitive punishment for the general populice is backwards thinking.

Now you are calling him names, again, a typical liberal response when you don't agree with someone else. Congrats again, Mr. College Degree guy.

Requiem
04-05-2013, 06:09 PM
A spade is a spade. He offered no solutions at all. Just more divisiveness and hot air. Not going to lick his balls and crown him king. You guys can do that. Let the circle jerk commence.

And yes, I have a college degree. Most people who aren't piles of **** do.

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2013, 06:10 PM
A spade is a spade. He offered no solutions at all. Just more divisiveness and hot air. Not going to lick his balls and crown him king. You guys can do that. Let the circle jerk commence.

And yes, I have a college degree. Most people who aren't piles of **** do.

more name calling, congrats.

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 06:12 PM
By the time Obama is done, he will have added more federal debt than all other presidents before him combined.

Debt has nothing to do with disparity.

OBF1
04-05-2013, 06:23 PM
A spade is a spade. He offered no solutions at all. Just more divisiveness and hot air. Not going to lick his balls and crown him king. You guys can do that. Let the circle jerk commence.

And yes, I have a college degree. Most people who aren't piles of **** do.

Why would you expect him to give a solution to your conceived problem?

Let me ask you.... What is the solution?

Personally in my opinion, there is not a solution. Do you have any idea how many millions of guns legal and illegal are in the hands of the people of the United States. The crap that the politician are spewing is just nonsense to appease the weak minded to make them feel good about their every day life. People that own large clips, automatic weapons and such are not going to be turning them over no matter what law is passed.

Every gun owner I know have had this same conversation and let me tell you, not a single one of them give a rats ass what congress passes as law, they are all keeping all of their weapons.

broncobum6162
04-05-2013, 06:24 PM
Have u not seen Fox news?? That channel is full of hypocritical, elitist, borderline racist, and conservative BS! This footage could fill a day of Fox News reports. They would love this. Those guys HATE Obama on that network.

Evidently you haven't been watching Fox News.....just repeating what every other media outlet that has a different agenda is saying.....:yayaya:

Mogulseeker
04-05-2013, 06:27 PM
Sheriff made some good points, but when on a lot of tangents and logical fallacies and doesn't offer any solutions himself. Just tries to regurgitate big words and repeats himself. Overly verbose. Wanna get real, Sheriff? Come up with some solutions on your own or actually state them instead of blaming Obama and leftist politicians using fear mongering, which was pretty much what your whole video was. Lol. What a turdlicker.

Lol, I was about to post something along the lines of "this guys is embarrassing himself" but I didn't want to appear as a liberal, because I'm not.

errand
04-05-2013, 06:31 PM
You guys act as if background checks/gun regulations is unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already ruled that guns can regulated,including the ban of ARs.

You know the SCOTUS doesn't always make the right decision, don't you?

Dred Scott says hello from the grave.......

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It made two main rulings. The first ruling was that African-Americans were not citizens, and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The second ruling was that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in any territory acquired subsequent to the creation of the United States.

To put that much power in the hands of a few individuals is very scary.........

errand
04-05-2013, 06:34 PM
Have u not seen Fox news?? That channel is full of hypocritical, elitist, borderline racist, and conservative BS! This footage could fill a day of Fox News reports. They would love this. Those guys HATE Obama on that network.


another liberal complaining about Fox news....that's like the college QB whining about the one cheerleader who won't sleep with him.

Archer81
04-05-2013, 06:34 PM
Congress penalizes the law abiding for being law abiding. The odd similarity between these mass shootings(besides the guns, obviously) are the people pulling it off are insane. Rather than find a way to keep crazy away from weapons, they blame the weapon. They then wrap up gun control in "protecting the children" flags and ram reactionary legislation through to 1. remove the right for Americans who have broken no laws to possess weapons or 2. cover their own ass so when these measures fail, they can say "well we did something, right?".

You do have to wonder, however why Americans cannot possess automatic weapons, but our beloved government can sell automatic weapons to mexican drug cartels. Odd, how that works.

:Broncos:

pricejj
04-05-2013, 06:44 PM
Debt has nothing to do with disparity.

Debt is the primary driver of disparity. Asset inflation occurs with the incremental increase in money supply.

Currently the federal government is printing money at a rate of $1T per year, driving the costs of real assets out of range for average Americans.

errand
04-05-2013, 06:47 PM
Are you ****ing serious?

:kiddingme:kiddingme:(

a black friend of mine was debating another co-worker years ago of how america started moving towards being a welfare state .....he stated that a significant change was made to the Constitution that brought about this shift.......he even pinpointed the date as August 18th, 1920


what was sad was not one woman in the break room during the debate knew what he was talking about.........

Archer81
04-05-2013, 06:52 PM
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/06/ca-senator-feinstein-calls-violent-games-a-negative-influence

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has linked violent video games to recent shootings and has stated that Congress may have to step in if the industry doesn't change its actions...

Why not. I mean, its not like our government has other issues to deal with.

:Broncos:

errand
04-05-2013, 06:57 PM
South Dakota and North Dakota = high ownership of guns and people aren't dying. . . but now teachers can pack heat in schools in SD. Wonder when the first tragedy will happen.

Hopefully never...but I'd be willing to bet the farm it ain't gonna happen in S.Dakota

It'll happen in a state that has harsh gun laws, and gun free zones......

errand
04-05-2013, 07:04 PM
I'm convinced that extreme wealth disparity (the worst in the world) makes America the most violent country in the world.

you're entitled to your opinion....

I think it has nothing to do with how much money a person has...it has to do with their morals. People like me who value life are more less likely to take another person's life than someone who can care less about life.

BTW, America's "poor" get food stamps....and own cell phones, get free or reduced housing, utilities, free or reduced medical care, dental care, and most of them have cars to drive.......and amazingly spend more time shooting each other than they do those you try to demonize for having more.

errand
04-05-2013, 07:10 PM
I would rather be a poor 50k where my boss makes 1million than a wealthy 10k in South Sudan.

Exactly! But you're suppose to "hate" your boss because he's making his money off the backs of his $50,000 a year employees.....but people never seem to think that -

to the person who only earns say $20,000 a year, a person making $50,000 a year is "rich"

to the person who makes $50,000 a year, the guy making $80-100,000 is "rich"

to the person who makes $1,000,000 a year, the guy making $2,000,000 is "rich"

baja
04-05-2013, 07:26 PM
A spade is a spade. He offered no solutions at all. Just more divisiveness and hot air. Not going to lick his balls and crown him king. You guys can do that. Let the circle jerk commence.

And yes, I have a college degree. Most people who aren't piles of **** do.

Actually he did offer a solution just by speaking out while in uniform, his message is patriot law officers will not enforce unconstitutional laws no matter where they issue from. Guess you didn't get to take the speech comprehension course from that college you attended that you manage to point out every other week or so..

rugbythug
04-05-2013, 07:41 PM
I own Guns more from fear of the Gov't than the people.

Anyone who thinks that our Gov't will last forever is fooling themselves

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 07:49 PM
Debt is the primary driver of disparity. Asset inflation occurs with the incremental increase in money supply.

Currently the federal government is printing money at a rate of $1T per year, driving the costs of real assets out of range for average Americans.

Distribution is the primary driver of disparity. It doesn't matter how much money is printed.

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 07:51 PM
you're entitled to your opinion....

I think it has nothing to do with how much money a person has...it has to do with their morals. People like me who value life are more less likely to take another person's life than someone who can care less about life.

BTW, America's "poor" get food stamps....and own cell phones, get free or reduced housing, utilities, free or reduced medical care, dental care, and most of them have cars to drive.......and amazingly spend more time shooting each other than they do those you try to demonize for having more.

Disparity means the size of the chasm between rich and poor. America's is the worst in the industrialized world.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

ant1999e
04-05-2013, 08:01 PM
Actually he did offer a solution just by speaking out while in uniform, his message is patriot law officers will not enforce unconstitutional laws no matter where they issue from. Guess you didn't get to take the speech comprehension course from that college you attended that you manage to point out every other week or so..

This kid's a joke. I don't believe a damn thing he says. I think he makes up 99% of his claimed life experiences. Desperately searching for attention. Poor little fella.

errand
04-05-2013, 08:41 PM
Care to explain this?

California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state.

The 10 most dangerous cities in the US are as follows -

1] Detroit, MI (top 10 toughest gun laws by city)
2] St. Louis, MO
3] Oakland, CA (top 10 toughest gun laws by state)
4] Memphis, TN
5] Birmingham, AL
6] Atlanta, GA (top 10 of toughest gun laws by city...ironically Kennesaw, just outside Atlanta requires citizens to own guns and has very little violent crime)
7] Baltimore, MD (top 10 toughest gun laws by state)
8] Stockton, CA (top 10 toughest gun laws by state)
9] Cleveland, OH (top 10 toughest gun laws)
10] Buffalo, NY (top 5 toughest gun laws by state)



Here are the 15 cities in the United States that reported the most murders and non-negligent homicides in 2011

New York — 515 (2nd toughest gun laws of US cities)
Chicago — 431 (has toughest gun laws of ANY city in US)
Detroit — 344 (in the top 10 of toughest gun laws of US cities)
Philadelphia — 324 (top 10 of toughest gun laws of US cities and just 7 shy of Dallas and Houston combined!)
Los Angeles — 297 (3rd toughest gun laws of US cities)
New Orleans — 200
Houston — 198
Baltimore — 196 (top 10 toughest gun laws by state)
Dallas — 133 (top 10 toughest gun laws by city)
Memphis — 117
Phoenix — 116
St. Louis — 113
Washington D.C. — 108
Kansas City, Mo.— 108
Oakland — 104 (in top 10 of toughest gun laws of US cities)

States with toughest gun laws

1-Pennsylvania
2-Illinois
3-Hawaii
4-Rhode Island
5-New York
6-Maryland
7-Connecticut
8-Massachusetts
9-New Jersey
10-California

errand
04-05-2013, 08:48 PM
Distribution is the primary driver of disparity. It doesn't matter how much money is printed.

Oh...OK...so do your part to prevent me from shooting up a school and kindly redistribute your wealth to me.

Jetmeck
04-05-2013, 09:05 PM
Have u not seen Fox news?? That channel is full of hypocritical, elitist, borderline racist, and conservative BS! This footage could fill a day of Fox News reports. They would love this. Those guys HATE Obama on that network.


Exactly, TBH there are tards on both sides but FOX is way , way out there.

Crazies on both sides to be sure but most are on the right.


That Sheriff is the minority of POLICE........they do not want a felon with an semi or automatic weapon with 30-100 round clips/drums firing at them.

Bet this retarded **** of a Sheriff would change his mind if they were aimed at him.

Waiting a little extra time to fill out a backgroung check or have to change out your ammo clip a few extra times is a real PIA.............

COMPARED TO SOMEONE'S LIFE ...YOUR MINOR INCONVENIENCE IS
JUST TO MUCH TO BEAR.............POOR POOR YOU

(AS HAS BEEN PROVEN AT MANY MASS SHOOTINGS BY MULTIPLE WACKJOBS BEING TAKEN DOWN DURING A CLIP CHANGE )


You guys need to at least acknowledge recent history...........

bombay
04-05-2013, 09:14 PM
There's a big who gives a ****. This kind of bull**** should always be on the main page.

Jetmeck
04-05-2013, 09:16 PM
And what is your take on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN? They all do the exact opposite. They hate on Republicans and don't report on any negative news that could hurt obama.

Today's job news confirms what I have been saying for 2 years. The real unemployment number is between 12-15% when you count the people that have quit looking for a job.

Keep supporting him though. History will show that his policies were failures. I just fear we won't ever be able to dig out of the hole we are creating with the debt where it is.


So One ass backwards network like Fox is telling the truth and the five others you mentioned are lieing to us ?

Sounds like all you saying every poll showing Romney losing was a liberal biased poll...............

Whatever as far as the economy we are damn lucky **** isn't worse............the same dumbasses repubs who spent us into oblivion and with dumbass tax breaks for rich people and two wars are the ones holding up progress right now.

EVERY SINGLE TIME THERE HAS BEEN A RECESSION THE GOVERNMENT HAS HAD TO HELP THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK BUT THIS TIME THE REPUBLICANS WHO BROKE THE COUNTRY WON'T ALLOW US TO SPEND MONEY AND CREATE JOBS THAT WE NEED TO SPUR THE ECONOMY BACK.............

ARGUE ALL YOU WANT THIS IS HOW IT HAS BEEN DONE AFTER EVERY SINGLE RECESSION IN THE PAST............

You want things fixed call your republican rep.................

Jetmeck
04-05-2013, 09:20 PM
It's too bad the Obama regime has skyrocketed the inflation of assets...putting real wealth out of reach of average Americans.

It's all part of his liberal progressive plan to put control of the masses into the hands of few.


Your an idiot and think like a child.........ever have an original thought ?

Quit watching & spewing FAUX NEWS...............

Jetmeck
04-05-2013, 09:37 PM
This has to be the most naive post I've ever seen on this website. Ya I'm sure the NYtimes msnbc etc loves to report something that favors a conservative point of view.


Considering how most elections have went lately and considering the fact that more votes were cast for democrats in the house of representatives than republicans but because of republican changing of the districts they stayed in power ..............

I think not too many conservatived ideas have been correct lately....at least not to the majority of us...................

baja
04-05-2013, 09:41 PM
There's a big who gives a ****. This kind of bull**** should always be on the main page.

...because there is so much football to talk about.

You should report the guy holding a gun to your head making you click on this thread.

some of us think it is important to preserve the 2nd amendment because if we the people don't insist on this some Sunday afternoon mid way through the first quarter some fed will walk into your house and tell you your services are needed down at the local FIMA camp/

baja
04-05-2013, 09:43 PM
Considering how most elections have went lately and considering the fact that more votes were cast for democrats in the house of representatives than republicans but because of republican changing of the districts they stayed in power ..............

I think not too many conservatived ideas have been correct lately....at least not to the majority of us...................

So you actually believe we have a two party system and who you vote in matters. Quaint.

Jetmeck
04-05-2013, 09:50 PM
So you actually believe we have a two party system and who you vote in matters. Quaint.


Well I would rather believe in the power of the people to actually get politicians to do what 90% of Americans want as far as background checks go...............some hear don't believe polls of any kind just cause they don't agree with them like when Romney was losing before the election.

Its what the people want and its nots quaint........its whats right.

Better to believe in the system as it is designed than believe the government is gonna knock on your door and take your guns which is a Fox news type of rant...............which one makes more sense to 90% of us...................?

baja
04-05-2013, 09:58 PM
Well I would rather believe in the power of the people to actually get politicians to do what 90% of Americans want as far as background checks go...............some hear don't believe polls of any kind just cause they don't agree with them like when Romney was losing before the election.

Its what the people want and its nots quaint........its whats right.

Better to believe in the system as it is designed than believe the government is gonna knock on your door and take your guns which is a Fox news type of rant...............which one makes more sense to 90% of us...................?

I agree it is very difficult to to admit our government has been hijacked by rouge global forces. But check your history it wouldn't be the first time a government was corrupted.

Jetmeck
04-05-2013, 10:05 PM
I agree it is very difficult to to admit our government has been hijacked by rouge global forces. But check your history it wouldn't be the first time a government was corrupted.

Global forces.......hope your joking around or smoking something ?

The only thing between the 90% of us wanting common sense gun control laws and something happening is the minority lobbyist NRA.

Global forces..........no.........DOMESTIC lobbyists convincing government to do whats best for the minority of us is the problem..............

baja
04-05-2013, 10:43 PM
Global forces.......hope your joking around or smoking something ?

The only thing between the 90% of us wanting common sense gun control laws and something happening is the minority lobbyist NRA.

Global forces..........no.........DOMESTIC lobbyists convincing government to do whats best for the minority of us is the problem..............

Never mind

carry on.

pricejj
04-05-2013, 10:53 PM
Distribution is the primary driver of disparity. It doesn't matter how much money is printed.

Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic disagree.

I don't want any part of the standard of living that your "wealth distribution" provides. Hasn't the unprecedented liberty and prosperity of the United States over the last 240 years taught you anything?

ZONA
04-05-2013, 11:15 PM
Bravo Bravo Bravo

It warms my heart to see a young officer of the law who is both awake to the problem and brave enough to make his statement while in uniform. I pray there are many move officers of the law that see through the systematic attack on the freedoms of this great nation.

I salute you Patriot!

I think it's disgusting actually. I don't think officers while on duty showcasing non-partisan views is good for anybody. How would you like it if a liberal sheriff pulled your over because he saw a Republican bumper sticker on your car and gave you the works no matter how your driving was. And vice versa (Republican cop giving a Dem the business). It's not a good thing. If they want to be one way or the other on their own time that is fine. While on duty, be a cop, not a politician. The badge doesn't belong to Republicans or Democrats. To protect and serve means to protect and serve the people, not a political view or agenda.

pricejj
04-05-2013, 11:44 PM
To protect and serve means to protect and serve the people, not a political view or agenda.

He is serving the people by helping to uphold our 2nd amendment rights against executive and legislative over-reach.

That's pretty much the whole point of the video. I would hope all elected officials held the same view. Instead, many of them are hell-bent on destroying the U.S. constitution.

DBroncos4life
04-06-2013, 12:01 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xC03hmS1Brk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:thumbs:

FrankieTwoThumbs
04-06-2013, 12:03 AM
Distribution is the primary driver of disparity. It doesn't matter how much money is printed.

How much money is printed impacts distribution. For example, when your on a fixed income and your money can't buy what it did yesterday, you have been made poorer in comparison to someone who will get a raise with inflation. A guy who retired after serving 30 years in the military loses money compared to a guy who just owns a bunch of stock that increases its dividend with with inflation.

BroncoBeavis
04-06-2013, 05:45 AM
I think it's disgusting actually. I don't think officers while on duty showcasing non-partisan views is good for anybody. How would you like it if a liberal sheriff pulled your over because he saw a Republican bumper sticker on your car and gave you the works no matter how your driving was. And vice versa (Republican cop giving a Dem the business). It's not a good thing. If they want to be one way or the other on their own time that is fine. While on duty, be a cop, not a politician. The badge doesn't belong to Republicans or Democrats. To protect and serve means to protect and serve the people, not a political view or agenda.

Just about every oath taken at every level of law enforcement and military service starts first and foremost with defending the Constitution of the United States. It's their sworn duty to protect it, even against corrupt political usurpation.

tesnyde
04-06-2013, 07:20 AM
I'm curious as to what your take on the political influence is in Colorado guys. I'm assuming its a lot like Montana in that the people that have lived there their whole lives are pretty traditional and for the most part are on the conservative side and the influx of californians and college students to the western state has really affected the political situation in Montana

Pretty much sums it up other than Denver has its own native liberal history and its not just Californians, but also rust belt and east coast move ins.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-06-2013, 07:36 AM
Global forces.......hope your joking around or smoking something ?

The only thing between the 90% of us wanting common sense gun control laws and something happening is the minority lobbyist NRA.

Global forces..........no.........DOMESTIC lobbyists convincing government to do whats best for the minority of us is the problem..............

If 90% of the population wanted "common sense gun control laws" they would already have been enacted.

rugbythug
04-06-2013, 07:38 AM
If 90% of the population wanted "common sense gun control laws" they would already have been enacted.

He is counting parts of his own internal Population.

Dukes
04-06-2013, 07:46 AM
Global forces.......hope your joking around or smoking something ?

The only thing between the 90% of us wanting common sense gun control laws and something happening is the minority lobbyist NRA.

Global forces..........no.........DOMESTIC lobbyists convincing government to do whats best for the minority of us is the problem..............

Talk about living in a bubble in fantasy land.

peacepipe
04-06-2013, 07:49 AM
If 90% of the population wanted "common sense gun control laws" they would already have been enacted.

And if the LGBT community had the political power that justice Roberts thinks it has,they would already have the right to marry.
The problem is we got politicians who serve the few,the wealthy.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-06-2013, 07:50 AM
Why doesn't Harry Reid bring an assault weapon / high capacity magazine ban up for a vote in the senate? It's not because of the NRA's lobbying efforts.

Bigdawg26
04-06-2013, 08:03 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xC03hmS1Brk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:thumbs:

:rofl:

jerseyboiler120
04-06-2013, 09:24 AM
Missed this thread yesterday. But the line graph showing New Jersey as a low gun/violent crime state is completely wrong. I live by Newark; there are murders constantly. And the ones that have the guns are the criminals that don't follow any laws anyway.

Can't trust any "facts" posted by abc, nbc, cbs, msnbc, cnn, yahoo, google, etc. They are propoganda machines, not media/news. Thus, the data the post is false. It has been proven to be so. For those of you libs who desire a communist country you should stop whining all the time, you're getting what you want.

The main point behind allowing citizens to have guns was to provide a means for protection against the government should it become too powerful and controlling. So what's happening now? Higher taxes to suppoer the entitled people who never work, can't drink large sodas, can't smoke, etc. Only the criminals live free. And as soon as the libs steal the guns there is no defense against the USSA.

Bronkota
04-06-2013, 09:56 AM
The main point behind allowing citizens to have guns was to provide a means for protection against the government should it become too powerful and controlling. So what's happening now? Higher taxes to suppoer the entitled people who never work, can't drink large sodas, can't smoke, etc. Only the criminals live free. And as soon as the libs steal the guns there is no defense against the USSA.

Saw a commercial on tv yesterday where listening to the radio and driving is considered distracted driving......

Paladin
04-06-2013, 10:05 AM
The main point behind allowing citizens to have guns was to provide a means for protection against the government should it become too powerful and controlling........

This is BS. The point of the Clause was to maintain "well regulated militias..." These were supposed to act under the orders of governors and State Legislatures. We know them today as National Guardsmen. Creeps who insist on having Bushmasters and other weapons of mass destruction are playing "Army", or looking to create fear and loathing. They are successful at the latter.

broncocalijohn
04-06-2013, 10:51 AM
Saw a commercial on tv yesterday where listening to the radio and driving is considered distracted driving......

I wonder if they advertise on the radio?

broncocalijohn
04-06-2013, 10:54 AM
This is BS. The point of the Clause was to maintain "well regulated militias..." These were supposed to act under the orders of governors and State Legislatures. We know them today as National Guardsmen. Creeps who insist on having Bushmasters and other weapons of mass destruction are playing "Army", or looking to create fear and loathing. They are successful at the latter.

Lol, oh really. Do you know why the constitution was written like it was? Because our own government, the English, were ****ing us over and we used our might to get our own country. Seems people forget that we fought against our country in 1776 (and well before).

Archer81
04-06-2013, 10:58 AM
This is BS. The point of the Clause was to maintain "well regulated militias..." These were supposed to act under the orders of governors and State Legislatures. We know them today as National Guardsmen. Creeps who insist on having Bushmasters and other weapons of mass destruction are playing "Army", or looking to create fear and loathing. They are successful at the latter.


To protect us from what centralized authority?


:Broncos:

ant1999e
04-06-2013, 11:05 AM
This is BS. The point of the Clause was to maintain "well regulated militias..." These were supposed to act under the orders of governors and State Legislatures. We know them today as National Guardsmen. Creeps who insist on having Bushmasters and other weapons of mass destruction are playing "Army", or looking to create fear and loathing. They are successful at the latter.

So those creeps in the military who believe in the 2nd and have Bushmasters, what are they playing?

peacepipe
04-06-2013, 11:05 AM
To protect us from what centralized authority?


:Broncos:
The Brits. They didn't set well regulated militias just so we could turn against ourselves.

Requiem
04-06-2013, 11:19 AM
more name calling, congrats.

Says the dude who has been referring me with the same moniker for about what, five years now? I graduated like three years ago, lmfao. Sorry bro!

Requiem
04-06-2013, 11:24 AM
Why would you expect him to give a solution to your conceived problem?

He brought up problems, offered no solutions. Lol.

Let me ask you.... What is the solution?

To which problems?

Personally in my opinion, there is not a solution.

Lol, how am I not surprised.

cutthemdown
04-06-2013, 11:38 AM
The stats tell us there is no assault weapons or high capacity clip problem in the USA. We do have a violence/crime problem but assault rifles are not chosen by the criminals as a viable tool to commit crimes. They like small handguns. Why focus on the rifle sportsman and citizens are buying?

Bigdawg26
04-06-2013, 11:45 AM
Evidently you haven't been watching Fox News.....just repeating what every other media outlet that has a different agenda is saying.....:yayaya:

O yeah I tried, but I just can't get past 10 minutes. Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Fox and friends are in to much of conservative bubble for me. But that's just my opinion!

Bigdawg26
04-06-2013, 11:48 AM
And what is your take on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN? They all do the exact opposite. They hate on Republicans and don't report on any negative news that could hurt obama.

Today's job news confirms what I have been saying for 2 years. The real unemployment number is between 12-15% when you count the people that have quit looking for a job.

Keep supporting him though. History will show that his policies were failures. I just fear we won't ever be able to dig out of the hole we are creating with the debt where it is.

Fox news just isn't my cup of tea. It finds reasons to bash the president whatever he does. He can say "Please pass the salt" and they find fault with it. So what your saying is that ALL other media outlets (MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN) are wrong and liberal, and Fox News is the only one right??

cutthemdown
04-06-2013, 11:57 AM
Fox news just isn't my cup of tea. It finds reasons to bash the president whatever he does. He can say "Please pass the salt" and they find fault with it. So what your saying is that ALL other media outlets (MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN) are wrong and liberal, and Fox News is the only one right??

I think he is saying the only reason fox news exists is because of those other networks. There bias towards the left forced the right to start a network of its own.

You realize how many times the left news agencies have been caught doctoring tape and video right? Cmon that is no accident. Like wise I am sure fox has done it also. I do laugh sometimes when i watch fox and they are obviously pushing the rights agenda. But i see it just as much the other way on virtually all the other networks. CBS and MSNBC being really bad.

Archer81
04-06-2013, 12:20 PM
The Brits. They didn't set well regulated militias just so we could turn against ourselves.


Right. I am sure the founding fathers were perfectly fine with a central government after just throwing off the chains of one.

...


:Broncos:

pricejj
04-06-2013, 12:43 PM
The founding fathers drafted the U.S. Constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to preserve the individual, unalienable rights of U.S. Citizens, specifically so they may protect themselves from a tyrannical central government and other criminals.

One of those rights is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and it grants individuals the right to keep and to bear arms.

How inconvenient for the Obama administration and the rest of the liberal progressives.

baja
04-06-2013, 12:46 PM
The stats tell us there is no assault weapons or high capacity clip problem in the USA. We do have a violence/crime problem but assault rifles are not chosen by the criminals as a viable tool to commit crimes. They like small handguns. Why focus on the rifle sportsman and citizens are buying?

Because those pushing the take away are the same persons planning to enslave you for your own good because they know what is good for you better than you do and they do not want you having the fire power when they make their move.

mhgaffney
04-06-2013, 01:28 PM
The violence we are seeing in our schools and theater is the dark underside of US foreign policy --

We are presently bombing and pillaging many nations -- in a series of insane foreign wars.

None of this is being honestly covered by the obsequious US media. The American people never see the true violence of what we are doing.

So it comes back to us in this way -- the chickens coming home to roost.

The best way to end the violence at home is to end the foreign wars. Wind down the empire and bring the troops home. Stop the CIA drug trafficking. Close the 700+ military bases abroad.

Focus on our DEEP problems here at home.

MHG

Paladin
04-06-2013, 01:46 PM
The founding fathers drafted the U.S. Constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to preserve the individual, unalienable rights of U.S. Citizens, specifically so they may protect themselves from a tyrannical central government and other criminals.

One of those rights is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and it grants individuals the right to keep and to bear arms.

How inconvenient for the Obama administration and the rest of the liberal progressives.

So tell me, O Great Brain: What's a "well regulated militia"? There is a difference between a militia and "individuals".

If the government wanted to do "whatever" to you, they would federlize the Guardsmen and have them do whatever. I guarantee you the Guardsmen would overtake any person or group of persons who have assault rifles. Not a problem. Therefor all the gobblygook about protecting oneself against the centralized Government is so much fantasy and BS. ("Hey, Karl: Big showdown coming at City Park. Bring your Bushie. REMEMBER RUBY RIDGE! REMEMBER WACO! REMEMBER YOUR FLASKS!")

So, what other reason would you want a Bushmaster? To kill Deer? Those Brainless arguments about stopping the Feds are laughable and idiocy at its best.

Tombstone RJ
04-06-2013, 02:08 PM
Says the dude who has been referring me with the same moniker for about what, five years now? I graduated like three years ago, lmfao. Sorry bro!

I'm not sure what you are talking about other than the fact that I keep pointing out that a liberal progressive like you, who has a lot of secondary education always seems to resort to name calling. It's a tactic of the liberals to sling insults at those who don't agree with you.

DarkHorse30
04-06-2013, 02:18 PM
The violence we are seeing in our schools and theater is the dark underside of US foreign policy --

We are presently bombing and pillaging many nations -- in a series of insane foreign wars.

None of this is being honestly covered by the obsequious US media. The American people never see the true violence of what we are doing.

So it comes back to us in this way -- the chickens coming home to roost.
MHG

The random insanity that propels idiots to kill groups of people is NOT preventable. Changing gun laws to FIX that problem is mis-directed but politically correct. Always "use" that crisis, like Rahm said.

Pillaging? "Chickens coming home to roost"? Wow. You actually think that America doesn't help other countries? Look at our budget and then come back to me on that.
Unfortunately, though, the only thing our Government is really good at is taking more of our money and doing little with it but help themselves. You need to get real, here. Throwing out talking points from the democratic party does nothing but create hatred between groups of people....divide and conqure, baby.

In the 4 years since BHO ramping up his golfing and expensive vacations, the US finds itself in the following situation:

the world hates us more than they did when he started.


our economy is in the worst ****hole since the depression


unemployment is around 15 percent ...IF you count those that completely gave up looking


Is this the hope or the change part? ...and when are HIS chickens going home?

StugotsIII
04-06-2013, 02:43 PM
The violence we are seeing in our schools and theater is the dark underside of US foreign policy --

We are presently bombing and pillaging many nations -- in a series of insane foreign wars.

None of this is being honestly covered by the obsequious US media. The American people never see the true violence of what we are doing.

So it comes back to us in this way -- the chickens coming home to roost.

The best way to end the violence at home is to end the foreign wars. Wind down the empire and bring the troops home. Stop the CIA drug trafficking. Close the 700+ military bases abroad.

Focus on our DEEP problems here at home.

MHG

File this under: **** nobody says.

errand
04-06-2013, 03:16 PM
Definition of INFRINGE

transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate

The right of the people to _____________ shall not be infringed.

pricejj
04-06-2013, 03:33 PM
If the government wanted to do "whatever" to you, they would federlize the Guardsmen and have them do whatever. I guarantee you the Guardsmen would overtake any person or group of persons who have assault rifles.

Sure, they could take me, easy. They might have a little more problems killing 300M other U.S. Citizens with guns, if that's what you're advocating.

It's all about control. Confiscate weapons from people, make them dependent on the government, and they can force you to pay taxes for anything they want...which they are already doing.

errand
04-06-2013, 03:47 PM
Gotta love the libs in here who amazingly wouldn't pick up a gun to save this nation if it were under attack, but have no problem if our own government wants to enslave us.....or wipe out those who refuse to go down quietly.

errand
04-06-2013, 03:50 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/12424_159495027548027_1610199886_n.jpg

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:16 PM
He is serving the people by helping to uphold our 2nd amendment rights against executive and legislative over-reach.

That's pretty much the whole point of the video. I would hope all elected officials held the same view. Instead, many of them are hell-bent on destroying the U.S. constitution.


The guy you are replying to gets it, you don't but whats new.

He is an officer of the law sworn to protect and uphold laws of the land. While on duty do your job and shut up.

After while off duty run your stupid pie hole, just another ignorant conservative.................who cares what he thinks.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:18 PM
If 90% of the population wanted "common sense gun control laws" they would already have been enacted.


As I said all polls shows high 80s and low 90s...........but just like you people would not believe Romney was losing every poll..........it happens to be fact.

Just cause you don't like it don't mean chit.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:20 PM
He is counting parts of his own internal Population.


No , here you are showing your ignorance of EVERY POLL showing exactly what I stated..............

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:21 PM
Why doesn't Harry Reid bring an assault weapon / high capacity magazine ban up for a vote in the senate? It's not because of the NRA's lobbying efforts.


Then why don't they ? Please explain

errand
04-06-2013, 04:27 PM
He is an officer of the law sworn to protect and uphold laws of the land.



He swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States........but feel free to remain stupid.....afterall it is still a free country.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:31 PM
The founding fathers drafted the U.S. Constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to preserve the individual, unalienable rights of U.S. Citizens, specifically so they may protect themselves from a tyrannical central government and other criminals.

One of those rights is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and it grants individuals the right to keep and to bear arms.

How inconvenient for the Obama administration and the rest of the liberal progressives.


You have a serious lack of education head up your ass problem...........

This is whats wrong with politics, people just make stuff up.

No one including the prez has tried to take away hand guns, shotguns or hunting rifles.

****ing idiots we are just trying to save a few lives but you ass clowns say oh no that won't save EVERY LIFE SO SCREW IT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

SO YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A FORM TO BUY A GUN...BIG DEAL.

SO YOU HAVE TO RELOAD A FEW EXTRA TIMES.....BIG DEAL.

TELL YOUR MINOR INCONVENIENCES TO THE FAMILY'S OF THOSE THESE SMALL MINOR INCONVENIENCEs WOULD HAVE ALREADY SAVED LIVES WHEN THeY TRY TO RELOAD.

Some of you are real a-holes........uncaring ****s that won't get it until someone in your family gets killed.

Then how stupid and remorseful will you be when you fought against something that might have saved that person's life ???

You guys are disgusting human beings.................


Assault weapons bans aside even though we had one for ten years.


Limting ammo clips sizes and filling out a form is not attacking your second amendment rights at all and most of you have no clue how the 2nd amendment is worded to begin with..................

errand
04-06-2013, 04:32 PM
Then why don't they ? Please explain

Because it would be DOA......and if for some odd ball reason it did pass the Senate, it wouldn't pass the House. US Government 101......

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:44 PM
Because it would be DOA......and if for some odd ball reason it did pass the Senate, it wouldn't pass the House. US Government 101......

YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY...........

NRA is backed by gun manufacturers and have politicians running scared.............

Regardless background checks and even ammo clip restrictions are likely as well......just look at several STATES already doing so.

I wouldn't even say an assault rifle ban is impossible, we had one for ten years.

Again idiots such as yourself who feel the need to flaunt their gun ownership even in the face of the Aurora tragedy will never GET IT...........

We shall see but the majority of the people are on the right side of this...........people like you will just have to live with your minor inconveniences of smaller ammo clips and paperwork.

What world do you live ?

Maybe assholes such as yourself feel the need to not walk thru the metal detector or be searched before getting on the plane cause your special...............

Its all relative but if it makes the whole more safe and secure then clowns such as yourself will just have to learn to live it.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:50 PM
Gotta love the libs in here who amazingly wouldn't pick up a gun to save this nation if it were under attack, but have no problem if our own government wants to enslave us.....or wipe out those who refuse to go down quietly.



I own several guns but guess my dick is big enough I don't feel the need for an assault rifle with a hundred round drum...........:rofl:

Gladly take up a gun to protect my country but I think clowns such as yourself are the real danger.

You got a serious prob............see aliens and bigfoot lately as well ?

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:52 PM
Sure, they could take me, easy. They might have a little more problems killing 300M other U.S. Citizens with guns, if that's what you're advocating.

It's all about control. Confiscate weapons from people, make them dependent on the government, and they can force you to pay taxes for anything they want...which they are already doing.


Just shut the **** with your stupidity.............

Confiscate............? Who said that ?


Conservative freakin nutbags...............

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:58 PM
I don't how some of you clowns get through the day without getting your ass knocked off.................

errand
04-06-2013, 04:59 PM
You have a serious lack of education head up your ass problem...........


says the moron who doesn't know why Harry Reid can't get a bill passed...

This is whats wrong with politics, people just make stuff up.

Like your 90% of Americans want another gun regulation?

No one including the prez has tried to take away hand guns, shotguns or hunting rifles.

Diane Feinstein says hi, while she destroys your statement by breaking it off in your ass with her "If I could get them all, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them in, I would have done it...."

****ing idiots we are just trying to save a few lives but you ass clowns say oh no that won't save EVERY LIFE SO SCREW IT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

We're trying to save lives too....and the Constitution as well.

SO YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A FORM TO BUY A GUN...BIG DEAL.

We already had to fill out a form to buy a gun, and it hasn't stopped one mass shooting, because the guys doing the killing don't care to fill out any form, old or new.

SO YOU HAVE TO RELOAD A FEW EXTRA TIMES.....BIG DEAL.

Well, according to you, many shooters have been taken down while having to change out magazines, so if we're defending ourselves, we have to change magazines and get killed by a criminal who takes us out while we're changing them? Like all you moron liberals say, "If it saves one life, it's worth it" If keeping 30 round magazines save one life would that also be worth it? Or are some lives worth it and others aren't?

TELL YOUR MINOR INCONVENIENCES TO THE FAMILY'S OF THOSE THESE SMALL MINOR INCONVENIENCEs WOULD HAVE ALREADY SAVED LIVES WHEN THeY TRY TO RELOAD.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A1bu7Y8iwXA

Yeah, limiting the size of the magazine will make a huge difference....especially when the only person with a gun in a gun free zone is the killer....God you're stupid.

Some of you are real a-holes........uncaring ****s that won't get it until someone in your family gets killed.

Or, maybe some of us have or know of others who have experienced the loss of family members to an armed criminal and have decided we're never going to be a victim of that ever again.

Then how stupid and remorseful will you be when you fought against something that might have saved that person's life ???

So how remorseful will you be if a gun law that keeps a law abiding citizen from protecting themselves and they die or get assaulted at the hands of a thug? if/when someone breaks into your home with a gun, what's your plan? You're gonna call a guy who has a gun, and pray to God he gets there in time to save your miserable life.....

You guys are disgusting human beings...............

...and your not?

Assault weapons bans aside even though we had one for ten years.

And yet we still had mass shootings and murder....so that ban didn't do any good either now did it?


Limting ammo clips sizes and filling out a form is not attacking your second amendment rights at all and most of you have no clue how the 2nd amendment is worded to begin with..................

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.....my God you're one stupid mutherfcker!





In bold

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 04:59 PM
Because it would be DOA......and if for some odd ball reason it did pass the Senate, it wouldn't pass the House. US Government 101......


So basically more republican obstruction ?

NRA has them scared.........

errand
04-06-2013, 05:03 PM
I don't how some of you clowns get through the day without getting your ass knocked off.................



I don't get my ass knocked off because I'm packing heat, but because we know you don't, pray tell.... how do you get through the day?

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:04 PM
In bold


What part does a non reading non understanding stupid **** such as yourself not understand about when the bad guys reload they
get taken down as has happened over and over.

It would have already saved some lives...........

Your minor inconveniences are not worth someone's life,........get it thru your republican ass backwards head.

Any law that would have saved lifes in the past and in the future and is a minor inconvenience is worth doing........

Mass shootings went after the assault weapons ban was abolished................

Its basic common sense stuff that does not affect your second amendment rights...........read it............doesn't mention type of guns, size of ammo clip or background checks.

Face it you clueless rep ****, things have changed in over 200 years................

errand
04-06-2013, 05:06 PM
So basically more republican obstruction ?

NRA has them scared.........

Nope...it's called a representative republic for a reason. We elect people to represent "we the people"....and there are more elected people whose constituents tell them that they don't want another gun ban than there are who say they do.

Johnykbr
04-06-2013, 05:07 PM
I wouldn't even say an assault rifle ban is impossible, we had one for ten years.

And for 10 years there wasn't a single murder in the entire universe with a automatic weapon. The end. oh wait....

Both sides admit that it amounted to jack squat.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:10 PM
I don't get my ass knocked off because I'm packing heat, but because we know you don't, pray tell.... how do you get through the day?

By stomping a mud hole in big feeling a-holes types...............

I had a gun pulled on me in Tulsa once....................he never got to use it..............end of that pistol sure looked like it hurt and he went to jail.................lol

That thing can be taken away very easily............

Drinking a-hole carrying a gun in a bar............we sure need more of that.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:12 PM
And for 10 years there wasn't a single murder in the entire universe with a automatic weapon. The end. oh wait....

Both sides admit that it amounted to jack squat.

Mass shootings have risen since then.............

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:19 PM
Nope...it's called a representative republic for a reason. We elect people to represent "we the people"....and there are more elected people whose constituents tell them that they don't want another gun ban than there are who say they do.


Now your telling me that politicians regularly do what the people tell them and not special interests.........SINCE WHEN ?

Your page long rant up a few has wholes in every single statement but I am gonna pick just this one your so full of chit...........

So you need a Bushmaster for home security and if that was taken away you couldn't defend yourself with a shotgun or handgun like every else does...........

Dude....your a loser who spews repub Fox News BS that even you know is crazy as hell................



I will also remind you how many times you kept denying the polls showing Romney losing.................just cause you don't want to believe it go look up all the polls.........your in the minority

errand
04-06-2013, 05:20 PM
What part does a non reading non understanding stupid **** such as yourself not understand about when the bad guys reload they
get taken down as has happened over and over.

So you're saying that a good guy in the middle of reloading can't be taken down by a criminal?

It would have already saved some lives...........

It could also cause someone to get killed as they get taken down by a criminal while reloading (your own theory)

Your minor inconveniences are not worth someone's life,........get it thru your republican ass backwards head.

My life is worth not being inconvenienced......

Any law that would have saved lifes in the past and in the future and is a minor inconvenience is worth doing........

Oh, OK...so let's just start kicking in doors and searching homes for drugs, weapons, child abuse or any other criminal activity like stealing cable, etc....sure some homeowners and citizens will have their rights violated but if we find one violent criminal wouldn't that also be worth it? and if not then why wouldn't that inconvenience be worth it?

Afterall, if it saves one life by violating everyone else's civil rights, wouldn't it be worth it?

Mass shootings went after the assault weapons ban was abolished................

Really? From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims. Oh, and the Columbine Shootings took place smack dab in the middle of the weapons ban.


Its basic common sense stuff that does not affect your second amendment rights...........read it............doesn't mention type of guns, size of ammo clip or background checks.

Sure it does.....it's right there next to the words musket, and 10 round limit

Face it you clueless rep ****, things have changed in over 200 years................

Yes, things have changed.....doesn't mean they're for the good.



In bold

DBroncos4life
04-06-2013, 05:22 PM
By stomping a mud hole in big feeling a-holes types...............

I had a gun pulled on me in Tulsa once....................he never got to use it..............end of that pistol sure looked like it hurt and he went to jail.................lol

That thing can be taken away very easily............

Drinking a-hole carrying a gun in a bar............we sure need more of that.

Dude I'm sure zero of that happened. :rofl:

errand
04-06-2013, 05:27 PM
So you need a Bushmaster for home security and if that was taken away you couldn't defend yourself with a shotgun or handgun like every else does...........






I can defend my self with my hands if need be, but that's not the point moron....it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

So let me ask you if Congress passed a law that said you had to buy an AR-15 with several 30 round magazines, what would you do?

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:28 PM
Dude I'm sure zero of that happened. :rofl:


Think by now you know what I think of your opinion
///
If you seen the bikers in ther you would beleive............rough place but good music and women. Never forget that guys face, I had stitches in my forehead from a bottle to remind me. Lucky to be alive.

Point being guns with idiots drinking and then tempers flare...

baja
04-06-2013, 05:28 PM
What part does a non reading non understanding stupid **** such as yourself not understand about when the bad guys reload they
get taken down as has happened over and over.

It would have already saved some lives...........

Your minor inconveniences are not worth someone's life,........get it thru your republican ass backwards head.

Any law that would have saved lifes in the past and in the future and is a minor inconvenience is worth doing........

Mass shootings went after the assault weapons ban was abolished................

Its basic common sense stuff that does not affect your second amendment rights...........read it............doesn't mention type of guns, size of ammo clip or background checks.

Face it you clueless rep ****, things have changed in over 200 years................

How old are you. i am not intending insult to you I am curious what years you were in high school and college if you went. I would like to know when you formed your opinions about why Americans have the right to bear arms.

errand
04-06-2013, 05:29 PM
Mass shootings have risen since then.............

From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims.

From 1995-2004 there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.

So tell me when was the assault weapons ban?

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:30 PM
I can defend my self with my hands if need be, but that's not the point moron....it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

So let me ask you if Congress passed a law that said you had to buy an AR-15 with several 30 round magazines, what would you do?

Read the second amendment please................you don't understand it.

For gods sake there are limits to everyhting even first amendment rights as well...............

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:31 PM
From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims.

From 1995-2004 there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.

So tell me when was the assault weapons ban?


I said it went up after the ban.............try again.

Funny how you leave the last 9 years off ?

Requiem
04-06-2013, 05:32 PM
The crazies are out in full force.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:33 PM
How old are you. i am not intending insult to you I am curious what years you were in high school and college if you went. I would like to know when you formed your opinions about why Americans have the right to bear arms.


READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT.............

PROB OLDER THAN YOU...........college degree.

errand
04-06-2013, 05:35 PM
I said it went up after the ban.............try again.

Funny how you leave the last 9 years off ?

Funny how you ignore the fact that mass shootings increased DURING the ban.....including the Columbine High shooting.

errand
04-06-2013, 05:36 PM
The crazies are out in full force.


C'mon man! It's just JetMeck.....

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:36 PM
Funny how you ignore the fact that mass shootings increased DURING the ban.....including the Columbine High shooting.

Throw up the last nine years or shut up ..............

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:39 PM
C'mon man! It's just JetMeck.....


Better than another asshole with a gun...........

Get used to me being right as I was about your hero Romney the loser.

Polls are right again and you know it.

Co and Connecticut have already done the deed...........its already happening as we speak....................

Requiem
04-06-2013, 05:40 PM
Better than another a-hole with a gun...........


But you don't have a problem getting into fights with people? :rofl:

errand
04-06-2013, 05:41 PM
Read the second amendment please................you don't understand it.



Yes I do.....you evidently have a problem with the right of the people not being infringed

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:43 PM
Your losing and it just might save some lives ................

How does it feel to be on the losing side again and again with so called conservative values that a majority of America has said again and again we don't want that............??

You all have a great rest of your weekend................

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:46 PM
But you don't have a problem getting into fights with people? :rofl:

Sometimes there is no getting away from the idiot.........

I was taught to fight as a last resort........doesn't always work that way but I try.

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 05:48 PM
Yes I do.....you evidently have a problem with the right of the people not being infringed

infringed how ? Can't protect yourself with that handgun ?

why don't you get a rocket launcher and carry that around...............good grief

DBroncos4life
04-06-2013, 05:48 PM
Think by now you know what I think of your opinion
///
If you seen the bikers in ther you would beleive............rough place but good music and women. Never forget that guys face, I had stitches in my forehead from a bottle to remind me. Lucky to be alive.

Point being guns with idiots drinking and then tempers flare...

Did you throw some periods at them? My guess is you peed and offered mouth services to get out of it.

errand
04-06-2013, 05:48 PM
Throw up the last nine years or shut up ..............


there have been 27 mass shootings since the ban ended.....meanwhile, from 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and from 1995-2004 there were 182 mass shootings.

so to summarize,

before the ban there were 173 mass shootings

during the ban there were 182 mass shootings

after the ban there have been 27 mass shootings

you're the one legged man who for some stupid reason always decides he wants to enter ass kicking contests.

cutthemdown
04-06-2013, 05:52 PM
Thats what sucks the most. As a nation we have done well reducing violence but media makes it out like its worst then ever and its time to finally act.

errand
04-06-2013, 05:54 PM
infringed how ? Can't protect yourself with that handgun ?

why don't you get a rocket launcher and carry that around...............good grief

Again it's called the Bill of Rights...not the Bill of Needs

and while I can protect myself from clown like yourself with my bare hands, my M-14 makes it a better fight should the SturmAbteilung come for me.

BTW, my guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car has....which means a rocket launcher is just as safe in my hands....why is that you may ask? Because I'm not some nut job/thug who doesn't value life and a law abiding citizen.

errand
04-06-2013, 05:56 PM
Sometimes there is no getting away from the idiot.........

I was taught to fight as a last resort........doesn't always work that way but I try.


...and I've taught my daughters to shoot, because a restraining order is just a ****ing piece of paper, and criminals don't care to follow laws.

errand
04-06-2013, 05:59 PM
Your losing and it just might save some lives ................

How does it feel to be on the losing side again and again with so called conservative values that a majority of America has said again and again we don't want that............??

You all have a great rest of your weekend................

funny but the majority of America once said that a black man could be bought and sold on a whim and was only 3/5th's of human being......just because they're the majority doesn't make them right

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 06:01 PM
there have been 27 mass shootings since the ban ended.....meanwhile, from 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and from 1995-2004 there were 182 mass shootings.

so to summarize,

before the ban there were 173 mass shootings

during the ban there were 182 mass shootings

after the ban there have been 27 mass shootings

you're the one legged man who for some stupid reason always decides he wants to enter ass kicking contests.
Your facts are wrong........can't have your oown facts.

173 and 182............please....about 10% of that is where it actually was.

Where did this info come from ?

Not what I have seen over and over. 32 is actually correct and when you are talking about women and children specifically........
how many more would be ok with you ?

35, 40 ?

Ass kicking contest....really then why I am winning in Co and Connecticut and polls show a nationwide overwhelming support for most gun control measures ?

If I am wrong then all those peole must be as well and your small minority is right ?

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 06:04 PM
Thats what sucks the most. As a nation we have done well reducing violence but media makes it out like its worst then ever and its time to finally act.


Maybe but his facts are way off.............173 or 182 mass shootings.............no way....try about 10% or less of that.

Whether the number of mass shootings has gone up or down may be debatable but when women and children start getting targeted one would think people would try to see the other side.

errand
04-06-2013, 06:08 PM
Not what I have seen over and over. 32 is actually correct and when you are talking about women and children specifically........
how many more would be ok with you ?

35, 40 ?



None are acceptable...but that's in a perfect world. We don't live in a perfect world now do we?

as for your claim that there have been 32...Ok, even if I give you that, how does that compare to the 183 that happened DURING the ban?

bottom line is in the decades prior to and after ban there have been approximately 200 mass shootings depending on which figures we use (yours or mine) compared to 183 during the ban.

So do the math there genius....200 mass shootings in 20 years = 10 per year, where 183 in 10 years of ban = over 18 per year.

So yeah, you're getting your ass kicked.....

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 06:08 PM
funny but the majority of America once said that a black man could be bought and sold on a whim and was only 3/5th's of human being......just because they're the majority doesn't make them right


Yep and they corrected their mistake as we are about to do with some common sense non second amendment resticting gun laws that most logical reasonable even gun owners agree with.

Two states and counting, think a third is about to do something.
Its happening and your losing.........

How maddening does this make you ?

Jetmeck
04-06-2013, 06:10 PM
None are acceptable...but that's in a perfect world. We don't live in a perfect world now do we?

as for your claim that there have been 32...Ok, even if I give you that, how does that compare to the 183 that happened DURING the ban?

bottom line is in the decades prior to and after ban there have been approximately 200 mass shootings depending on which figures we use (yours or mine) compared to 183 during the ban.

So do the math there genius....200 mass shootings in 20 years = 10 per year, where 183 in 10 years of ban = over 18 per year.

So yeah, you're getting your ass kicked.....



Whatever there were not 183 or 172 period...........your lying

baja
04-06-2013, 06:18 PM
READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT.............

PROB OLDER THAN YOU...........college degree.

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution


Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[34]
Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]

enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;[43]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[44][45][46]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[47]

During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, these Patriots established independent colonial legislatures to create their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo on firearms, parts and ammunition on the American colonies.[48]

British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[49] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[49] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars' interpretation of Blackstone.[50]

The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:

Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[49]
The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[51] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown to an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.[52] Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[53][54] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[55]

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[56] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[57]

One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[58] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[59] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[59][60]
Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[61][62] Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the Constitution of New Hampshire (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind").[63]

There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France.[64] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[65] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[49] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.[66][67]

errand
04-06-2013, 06:28 PM
Sometimes there is no getting away from the idiot.........



I understand, I'm reminded every time I log onto here and see you've posted in here....

errand
04-06-2013, 06:39 PM
Whatever there were not 183 or 172 period...........your lying


Crime stats compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.


From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.

I'm guessing that 2+2=4 is only correct if you hear it from MSNBC and that shag-gagging hag Rachel Maddow.......

Requiem
04-06-2013, 06:46 PM
Sometimes there is no getting away from the idiot.........

I was taught to fight as a last resort........doesn't always work that way but I try.

Who taught you how to type? :)

DBroncos4life
04-06-2013, 06:52 PM
Who taught you how to type? :)

Jetmeck stops sentences period.

ZONA
04-06-2013, 08:27 PM
Because those pushing the take away are the same persons planning to enslave you for your own good because they know what is good for you better than you do and they do not want you having the fire power when they make their move.

Planning to enslave you? For real? I can understand those who think they should have AR-15's based on how they perceive the 2nd amendment, that's fine. But you delusional paranoid folks who think the liberal agenda is to enslave the American people is down right idiotic.

You want to know about enslaving, the fastest and most simple way is to continue on this wealth gap. The richest 1% gaining control over the nation, it's laws, it's political views, etc.

WE THE PEOPLE....means all the people, poor, middle class and the rich. Once you get to the point where that 1% control everything, that'w when you will see the true enslaving going on. It's already happening dude. American middle class and poor class workers work harder, are paid less, have less benefits every year it seems. The rich don't take pay cuts. The government gives them bail outs at the cost of every hard working man and woman. The rich have tax loop holes to exploit while the poor don't.

If there were ever to be another revolution in these United State, it would not be the people fighting against a liberal agenda. It would be due to the rich becoming so wealthy on the blood and sweat of the poor (sound familiar) and the middle class disappearing while the poor class would become so large, they could not bare it any longer. They would revolt.

You guys are so worried about a few damn guns you can't see what's right in front of you face. You can clearly see how other countries with dictators are governed. It's human nature. They take everything and leave the rest with beans and expect you to be happy about it. They make laws that benefit only them.

Honestly, it's not about the size of government. You guys get so distracted on that. It's about making sure the middle class and the poor have a voice and a representative. When those are gone, and the very richest control everything, all hell breaks lose.

Look at countries ruled by dictators. That's as small as a government as you will find. 1 leader, a few side kicks and military to carry out their every wish. We'll see how long you have your guns when that happens. We'll see how you get to keep anything worth value.

And this is not about Republican or Democrats. Once the richest gain full control, there won't even be parties. It will be a Totalitarianism government. There won't be voting. Just the mega wealthy, controlling it all. Make no mistake, to be wealthy is no crime at all. But when they influence politics to which the likes of what we see now, with the wealth gap the largest it's ever been, and showing NO signs of slowing down, that's when it starts to look really grim for everybody else. It won't matter if they are Democrats are Republican. The wealthy want more wealth and to increase the wealth gap. We already saw how fast the richest can crush the rest of us. The Wallstreet greed a few years back just about did us in.

You should be less concerned about a few guns and way more concerned about the wealthiest trying to control out political system, buy elections, influence laws that only benefit them.

maher_tyler
04-06-2013, 08:41 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Hkq3c.gif

baja
04-06-2013, 09:15 PM
Planning to enslave you? For real? I can understand those who think they should have AR-15's based on how they perceive the 2nd amendment, that's fine. But you delusional paranoid folks who think the liberal agenda is to enslave the American people is down right idiotic.

You want to know about enslaving, the fastest and most simple way is to continue on this wealth gap. The richest 1% gaining control over the nation, it's laws, it's political views, etc.

WE THE PEOPLE....means all the people, poor, middle class and the rich. Once you get to the point where that 1% control everything, that'w when you will see the true enslaving going on. It's already happening dude. American middle class and poor class workers work harder, are paid less, have less benefits every year it seems. The rich don't take pay cuts. The government gives them bail outs at the cost of every hard working man and woman. The rich have tax loop holes to exploit while the poor don't.

If there were ever to be another revolution in these United State, it would not be the people fighting against a liberal agenda. It would be due to the rich becoming so wealthy on the blood and sweat of the poor (sound familiar) and the middle class disappearing while the poor class would become so large, they could not bare it any longer. They would revolt.

You guys are so worried about a few damn guns you can't see what's right in front of you face. You can clearly see how other countries with dictators are governed. It's human nature. They take everything and leave the rest with beans and expect you to be happy about it. They make laws that benefit only them.

Honestly, it's not about the size of government. You guys get so distracted on that. It's about making sure the middle class and the poor have a voice and a representative. When those are gone, and the very richest control everything, all hell breaks lose.

Look at countries ruled by dictators. That's as small as a government as you will find. 1 leader, a few side kicks and military to carry out their every wish. We'll see how long you have your guns when that happens. We'll see how you get to keep anything worth value.

And this is not about Republican or Democrats. Once the richest gain full control, there won't even be parties. It will be a Totalitarianism government. There won't be voting. Just the mega wealthy, controlling it all. Make no mistake, to be wealthy is no crime at all. But when they influence politics to which the likes of what we see now, with the wealth gap the largest it's ever been, and showing NO signs of slowing down, that's when it starts to look really grim for everybody else. It won't matter if they are Democrats are Republican. The wealthy want more wealth and to increase the wealth gap. We already saw how fast the richest can crush the rest of us. The Wallstreet greed a few years back just about did us in.

You should be less concerned about a few guns and way more concerned about the wealthiest trying to control out political system, buy elections, influence laws that only benefit them.

This is what you fail to grasp Zona. It's all parts of the same agenda.

If you take peoples money and thus their accustomed quality of life do you think they want to leave those angry millions armed.

ghwk
04-06-2013, 11:12 PM
Gotta love the libs in here who amazingly wouldn't pick up a gun to save this nation if it were under attack, but have no problem if our own government wants to enslave us.....or wipe out those who refuse to go down quietly.

You just went full retard with this post.

ghwk
04-06-2013, 11:21 PM
READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT.............

PROB OLDER THAN YOU...........college degree.

And still living in the US. Not like the guy who has everyone's back from the back. I actually have more respect from the foreigners in the US arguing for or against an issue than the guy who left he country and still claims the right to speak as an American. Albeit a cowardly one.

ghwk
04-06-2013, 11:32 PM
Again it's called the Bill of Rights...not the Bill of Needs

and while I can protect myself from clown like yourself with my bare hands, my M-14 makes it a better fight should the SturmAbteilung come for me.

BTW, my guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car has....which means a rocket launcher is just as safe in my hands....why is that you may ask? Because I'm not some nut job/thug who doesn't value life and a law abiding citizen.

Nope I take it back, this is where you went full retard. Didn't think you could top yourself when it came to senseless analogies but you are to be congratulated. You have taken every thing you learned from whatever education you got and have managed to mis apply it.

You keep insisting that infringement of rights and the 2nd amendment are based on your own personal definition of what it should be, but you don't realize that fact. I think you got to too much sand kicked in your face by the school bully when you were a little boy.

schaaf
04-06-2013, 11:32 PM
JetMeck and Errand are like both sides village idiots front and center throwing haymakers.

We all find it funny and enjoy watching but behind that smile and laughter lies shame, guilt, and embarrassment.

baja
04-06-2013, 11:49 PM
And still living in the US. Not like the guy who has everyone's back from the back. I actually have more respect from the foreigners in the US arguing for or against an issue than the guy who left he country and still claims the right to speak as an American. Albeit a cowardly one.

Love how guys like you afraid to leave your mother's protection talking tough about world travelers. awful brave behind your computer screen and too stupid to understand traveling takes courage. You think you are entitled to something special because you happen to pop out in the USA. That was none of your doing and makes you no different than any other human being. Your words betray your ignorance. I pity you that ignorance and mind you not.

ZONA
04-07-2013, 12:23 AM
The constitution allows Congress to raise and support an army for no longer than two years, according to section 8. As opposed to the language of the next line which is to provide and maintain an provide for a navy.
The Continental Congress established the Continental Army in 1775 to fight the revolution. The Legion of the Unites States was established in 1792- 1796 to fight the Native Americans, which means it was established and renewed once.
The Congress re-raised the army for the war of 1812 and Mexican-American War from 1846-1848.
Once again for the Civil War Congress called up the state militias to form an army.
It was not until the late 19th / early 20th century that the current standing army was formed.
Taken from section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the United States Constitution.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


So you see, back in the day, there was no standing full time military force. A well regulated militia was necessary for the defense of the United State. There is a full time standing military today. The military IS the well regulated militia. The militia is no longer the "people".


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.

The right to bear arms was because the "people" were the militia, the military. The full time standing military today is the well regulated militia. They keep and bare arms. The people should not keep and bare arms, they are not the militia anymore and it's not necessary for the security of the sate. The military is what's necessary for the security of the state. There's no way you could manage and regulate everybody now who has a gun. For god sake we don't even do back ground checks on half the people who buy guns. That's NOT WELL REGULATED.


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/416860_348215151943441_1514122753_n.png

ghwk
04-07-2013, 12:27 AM
Love how guys like you afraid to leave your mother's protection talking tough about world travelers. awful brave behind your computer screen and too stupid to understand traveling takes courage. You think you are entitled to something special because you happen to pop out in the USA. That was none of your doing and makes you no different than any other human being. Your words betray your ignorance. I pity you that ignorance and mind you not.

Tough talk from behind the screen your self. You left I am here, and I've traveled plenty. Not sure why you think traveling gives you some special place, privilege or opinion of the world.

baja
04-07-2013, 12:34 AM
Tough talk from behind the screen your self. You left I am here, and I've traveled plenty. Not sure why you think traveling gives you some special place, privilege or opinion of the world.

Congratulations

Agamemnon
04-07-2013, 03:23 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Dr. Broncenstein
04-07-2013, 02:00 PM
Then why don't they ? Please explain

Democrats in the Senate such as majority leader Harry Reid will not allow a senate vote on an assault weapons ban, because they will be voted out of office if they do. It's not the NRA. It's not republican obstructionism. It's spineless democrats who are too chicken shiat to lose their elected office. How can that be if 90% of the population wants an assault weapons ban?

Requiem
04-07-2013, 02:15 PM
Democrats in the Senate such as majority leader Harry Reid will not allow a senate vote on an assault weapons ban, because they will be voted out of office if they do. It's not the NRA. It's not republican obstructionism. It's spineless democrats who are too chicken shiat to lose their elected office. How can that be if 90% of the population wants an assault weapons ban?

No, it isn't that. A vote on that issue on its own merits wouldn't pass in Congress and they wouldn't have the # of votes to keep it moving forward or even have the ability to bring it to debate. The population itself may overwhelmingly be in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but that doesn't mean their Congressional representatives are.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-07-2013, 02:24 PM
No, it isn't that. A vote on that issue on its own merits wouldn't pass in Congress and they wouldn't have the # of votes to keep it moving forward or even have the ability to bring it to debate. The population itself may overwhelmingly be in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but that doesn't mean their Congressional representatives are.

Harry Reid will never vote for an assault weapons ban. The reason he won't is because the majority of his constituents will vote him out if he does.

Requiem
04-07-2013, 03:18 PM
Harry Reid will never vote for an assault weapons ban. The reason he won't is because the majority of his constituents will vote him out if he does.

He has taken a lot of unpopular votes that would go against what his constituents believe, yet he keeps getting elected.

So once again, nope.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-07-2013, 05:19 PM
He has taken a lot of unpopular votes that would go against what his constituents believe, yet he keeps getting elected.

So once again, nope.

Lol. Why won't he vote for an assault weapons ban then? I've been told 90% of the population wants it, and Reid ain't skeered of his constituency. He's the majority leader of the senate so he pretty much runs the show in his house of congress. Why won't he go on record and vote against assault weapons or high capacity mags?

Requiem
04-07-2013, 05:58 PM
I already stated that. It was dropped from the current bill because they don't believe that having that amendment in there will allow them to get the number of votes necessary to pass the legislation they are already going for. It seems that they would rather start making progress somewhere and get what they can now, than have something like that be a poison pill to the overall bill. Happens a lot with legislation.

Do you think that it would get the majority vote in Congress? I highly doubt it. Stating that Reid won't bring it to a vote now because he will get voted out is absurd. Primary reason? He isn't even up for contest in 2014. Lol. Derp.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-07-2013, 06:13 PM
I already stated that. It was dropped from the current bill because they don't believe that having that amendment in there will allow them to get the number of votes necessary to pass the legislation they are already going for. It seems that they would rather start making progress somewhere and get what they can now, than have something like that be a poison pill to the overall bill. Happens a lot with legislation.

Do you think that it would get the majority vote in Congress? I highly doubt it. Stating that Reid won't bring it to a vote now because he will get voted out is absurd. Primary reason? He isn't even up for contest in 2014. Lol. Derp.

Why won't Reid specifically vote for an assault weapons ban and magazine restriction?

Requiem
04-07-2013, 06:20 PM
Why won't Reid specifically vote for an assault weapons ban and magazine restriction?

I have already given my answer.

Do you know how legislation is introduced and formed in Congress?

Dr. Broncenstein
04-07-2013, 06:43 PM
I have already given my answer.

Do you know how legislation is introduced and formed in Congress?

Lol. You are so desperate to act like you know your head from your ass it's cute. Someday when you have accomplished anything in your life, get back to me and explain why Harry Reid said an assault weapons ban would not have 40 votes "using the most optimistic numbers" in a Democrat controlled senate. Because that's what he said, much to the lamentation of Dianne Fienstein. Study it out (when possible) between bong hits down in granny's basement.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/19/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-reid-senate-bill/2000119/

Requiem
04-07-2013, 07:43 PM
Lol. You are so desperate to act like you know your head from your ass it's cute. Someday when you have accomplished anything in your life, get back to me and explain why Harry Reid said an assault weapons ban would not have 40 votes "using the most optimistic numbers" in a Democrat controlled senate. Because that's what he said, much to the lamentation of Dianne Fienstein. Study it out (when possible) between bong hits down in granny's basement.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/19/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-reid-senate-bill/2000119/

I have already read the article(s) regarding Reid's statements and I have re-iterated those points he has made on the Senate not having enough votes to be able to pass it. I think there are quite a few easy reasons for him to come to that conclusion. Most are self-evident, but apparently beyond your comprehension. It isn't my fault that you have a very limited understanding of the legislative process. That is your own fault.

As you have stated, you think he is scared to bring it to a vote because if he does, he will be voted out. Probably one of the most absurd conclusions one could come to (and quite simple minded) considering he isn't up for re-election and has voted against the will of his people on issues that effect the state of Nevada far more than a ban on assault weapons.

The only person acting desperate in this thread is you. Hence reaching for the low-ball personal attacks when you can't come up with the cognitive capacity to approach a political argument from a higher mental standpoint than a seventh grader who just prepped for his first Lincoln-Douglas debate session.

Continue to rock on with your awesome guns in your mega mansion. But don't worry, if your arm falls off after patting yourself on the back too much, I am sure you could surgically repair it yourself. :)

errand
04-07-2013, 08:17 PM
The population itself may overwhelmingly be in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but that doesn't mean their Congressional representatives are.

.....and that doesn't concern you?

BroncoBeavis
04-08-2013, 08:00 AM
The constitution allows Congress to raise and support an army for no longer than two years, according to section 8. As opposed to the language of the next line which is to provide and maintain an provide for a navy.
The Continental Congress established the Continental Army in 1775 to fight the revolution. The Legion of the Unites States was established in 1792- 1796 to fight the Native Americans, which means it was established and renewed once.
The Congress re-raised the army for the war of 1812 and Mexican-American War from 1846-1848.
Once again for the Civil War Congress called up the state militias to form an army.
It was not until the late 19th / early 20th century that the current standing army was formed.
Taken from section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the United States Constitution.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


So you see, back in the day, there was no standing full time military force. A well regulated militia was necessary for the defense of the United State. There is a full time standing military today. The military IS the well regulated militia. The militia is no longer the "people".


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.

The right to bear arms was because the "people" were the militia, the military. The full time standing military today is the well regulated militia. They keep and bare arms. The people should not keep and bare arms, they are not the militia anymore and it's not necessary for the security of the sate. The military is what's necessary for the security of the state. There's no way you could manage and regulate everybody now who has a gun. For god sake we don't even do back ground checks on half the people who buy guns. That's NOT WELL REGULATED.


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/416860_348215151943441_1514122753_n.png

This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.

Requiem
04-08-2013, 08:46 AM
.....and that doesn't concern you?

Elected officials should represent the will of the people.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 08:59 AM
This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.
Funny that you bring up SCOTUS,considering they ruled guns can be regulated,including the ban of certain guns.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2013, 09:23 AM
This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.

It would be easier to take this argument as more than an anachronism if there were any serious efforts by the gun nuts to form "well-regulated militias" that could theoretically act as a realistic counter-balance to the government's standing army. But such "well-regulated militias" as would have any prayer against the government's army simply don't exist, and as far as I know, there aren't any serious efforts to change that. So, this type of argument is nothing more than rhetorical. No one takes that argument seriously, including the gun nuts. After all, if they did, they would have made real efforts to form a group that could have a realistic chance to thwart the government. They haven't (at least not in any significant numbers).

BroncoBeavis
04-08-2013, 09:27 AM
Funny that you bring up SCOTUS,considering they ruled guns can be regulated,including the ban of certain guns.

Did anyone argue otherwise? Speech, and the Press is also regulated in certain ways. That does not naturally lead to the assumption that the 1st Amendment is no longer really necessary (like the argument I addressed regarding the 2nd Amendment)

The entire Bill of Rights was basically written under the premise that government couldn't always be trusted. Why is it that only the 2nd Amendment is always so easily dismissed under the opposite pretense?

BroncoBeavis
04-08-2013, 09:35 AM
It would be easier to take this argument as more than an anachronism if there were any serious efforts by the gun nuts to form "well-regulated militias" that could theoretically act as a realistic counter-balance to the government's standing army. But such "well-regulated militias" as would have any prayer against the government's army simply don't exist, and as far as I know, there aren't any serious efforts to change that. So, this type of argument is nothing more than rhetorical. No one takes that argument seriously, including the gun nuts. After all, if they did, they would have made real efforts to form a group that could have a realistic chance to thwart the government. They haven't (at least not in any significant numbers).

You need to look at the title of the thread. If you think resistance to something as tyrannical as firearms confiscation could be limited to a few lone gun nuts, you're fooling yourself. Counter to what you're saying, our Government lacks the kind of power it would need to truly disarm the United States. Which is why certain segments engage in so much seemingly pointless incrementalism. It's all they're capable of at this point.

The only thing that will change that over time is a people who don't understand their history, or are otherwise apathetic to it.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2013, 10:58 AM
You need to look at the title of the thread. If you think resistance to something as tyrannical as firearms confiscation could be limited to a few lone gun nuts, you're fooling yourself. Counter to what you're saying, our Government lacks the kind of power it would need to truly disarm the United States. Which is why certain segments engage in so much seemingly pointless incrementalism. It's all they're capable of at this point.

The only way gun owners could create a realistic defense to the government would be to organize into "well-regulated militias" of significant numbers. No such militias exist, and no serious efforts are being made to form them. Individual gun owners would pose no threat to full government force (they won't be able to organize on the fly), and anyone who believes otherwise is highly delusional.

The only thing that will change that over time is a people who don't understand their history, or are otherwise apathetic to it.

Your arrogant blustering aside, your biased interpretation of history is hardly the final word.

BroncoBeavis
04-08-2013, 12:37 PM
The only way gun owners could create a realistic defense to the government would be to organize into "well-regulated militias" of significant numbers. No such militias exist, and no serious efforts are being made to form them. Individual gun owners would pose no threat to full government force (they won't be able to organize on the fly), and anyone who believes otherwise is highly delusional.

Our government's spent the better part of 50 years learning that while they're great at blowing stuff up, they struggle to govern even modestly armed people without their consent.

Your arrogant blustering aside, your biased interpretation of history is hardly the final word.

My Bias is towards foundational principle. Do you believe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right?

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 12:57 PM
Our government's spent the better part of 50 years learning that while they're great at blowing stuff up, they struggle to govern even modestly armed people without their consent.



My Bias is towards foundational principle. Do you believe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right?

The right to bear arms isn't absolute.

BroncoInferno
04-08-2013, 01:10 PM
Our government's spent the better part of 50 years learning that while they're great at blowing stuff up, they struggle to govern even modestly armed people without their consent.

To the extent that there have been struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, those have not been due to armed individuals. It's been the result of armed, organized, and well-trained groups. No such groups exist in the U.S., and they won't sprout spontaneously if needed.

My Bias is towards picking and choosing from the historical data to "prove" my preferred vision of foundational principle.

FYP.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would probably give you two different responses if you asked them about "foundational principle," and Ben Franklin a third still. The Founders weren't some monolithic bloc sharing the same opinions on all subjects anymore than politicians today are. For anyone to appeal to "foundational principle" or the "intent of the Founders" is nothing more than self-serving rhetoric; it's not historical.

Do you believe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right?

Carte blanche? No, and neither do you (and, more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court). The problem is, the Founders had something different in mind when discussing "arms" in the 18th century. For anyone to try and pretend to know what the opinions of the Founders would be regarding arms in the 21st century is ludicrous. They formulated 18th century solutions to their 18th century problems. The constitution isn't Holy Writ; it's chock full of anachronisms. That's why Jefferson said the constitution should be ripped up and rewritten every 20 years.

ant1999e
04-08-2013, 01:24 PM
Resistance is futile. Submit to your government and OBEY all orders. Relinquish all rights or suffer the consequences.

ZONA
04-08-2013, 01:26 PM
This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.


So what if there was a debate. Did their debate change the constitution? You're simply kidding yourself if you think the American people baring arms could mount even a remote threat to our government and military such as ours is today. The early forefather could only look into the future so far there bud. You like to suggest that us fighting terror in Afghanistan would be even remotely the same as taking care of some pockets of resistance here. Gimme a break. How well did the German people resist the Nazi party? Somewhat at first but they all fell in line sooner or later. They dealt with pockets of resistance here and there. It was only when the Nazi party decided to go way beyond just changing the politics of Germany, did they fall. It would be even more lopsided today with the intelligence, satellites, jets, tanks, drones and who knows what else our military has today. You think some back ass woods clans with some AR-15's could overthrow our military? There's no way the "people" could organize to that degree. Not with how advanced the government and military are today.

ant1999e
04-08-2013, 01:52 PM
Are those in the military not also "the people"?

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 02:30 PM
Are those in the military not also "the people"?

Which makes the right-wing argument absurd,they are essentially are advocating turning against our own people.

ant1999e
04-08-2013, 02:46 PM
Which makes the right-wing argument absurd,they are essentially are advocating turning against our own people.

It's a little more complex than that. I don't understand why it is so utterly unfathomable that a people successfully resist tyranny from a government or larger more powerful military. Revolutionary War, Soviet/Afghan War for examples. Yes, in each the weaker force was assisted by a larger but who's to say it can't happen? A civilian force fighting for freedom has more to lose than a corrupt government thus will fight harder. Add to that my point on the military also being of the people, many but not all would shift sides (national guard/reserve units). Now if you disarm the people, there is no hope.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 02:55 PM
It's a little more complex than that. I don't understand why it is so utterly unfathomable that a people successfully resist tyranny from a government or larger more powerful military. Revolutionary War, Soviet/Afghan War for examples. Yes, in each the weaker force was assisted by a larger but who's to say it can't happen? A civilian force fighting for freedom has more to lose than a corrupt government thus will fight harder. Add to that my point on the military also being of the people, many but not all would shift sides (national guard/reserve units). Now if you disarm the people, there is no hope.

I don't understand the delusion some on the right have about some fantasy that tyranny is at our doorstep or is around the corner. When all that is happening is that the right-wing is no longer the majority in the country. Our entire system of gov. Would have to be abolished & moved into a dictatorship for tyranny to truly happen. We have a house of reps,senate & scotus to prevent tyranny from happening.

ZONA
04-08-2013, 03:30 PM
Are those in the military not also "the people"?

I'm sure some would have conflict of emotions but in their training they do go over scenarios where martial law is declared. Obviously I think a soldier is loyal to his family 1st and foremost but after that it's to the service, not strangers they would not even know, even if they are Americans.

BroncoBeavis
04-08-2013, 03:53 PM
To the extent that there have been struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, those have not been due to armed individuals. It's been the result of armed, organized, and well-trained groups. No such groups exist in the U.S., and they won't sprout spontaneously if needed.

I think we had this argument before, and if I remember right, credible estimates put insurgency strength in Afghanistan as something like 10-15,000. Insignificant. If the federal government decided to go house to house taking weapons in the United States, you'd have far more current and former military-trained fighters alone who would take up arms. Many States themselves would likely resist as well, as would many of their local arms of law enforcement.

The federal government could order such a thing. But they have no realistic means to carry it out.

FYP.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would probably give you two different responses if you asked them about "foundational principle," and Ben Franklin a third still. The Founders weren't some monolithic bloc sharing the same opinions on all subjects anymore than politicians today are. For anyone to appeal to "foundational principle" or the "intent of the Founders" is nothing more than self-serving rhetoric; it's not historical.

Please. "They didn't agree 100% on absolutely everything, therefore whatever I want their document to say, it can say"

You might not find a single Constitutional topic on which there was more agreement than the importance of an armed populace as a check on their government. If you've found citations to the contrary, please feel free to share. I've asked for this before and have yet to see a single example.

In the meantime, as I've said before, you no longer have any basis to call Separation of Church and State a Constitutional principle. That was thrown out one time by exactly one founding father, while there was far wider disagreement on what exactly freedom of religion really meant in practice.


Carte blanche? No, and neither do you (and, more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court). The problem is, the Founders had something different in mind when discussing "arms" in the 18th century. For anyone to try and pretend to know what the opinions of the Founders would be regarding arms in the 21st century is ludicrous. They formulated 18th century solutions to their 18th century problems. The constitution isn't Holy Writ; it's chock full of anachronisms. That's why Jefferson said the constitution should be ripped up and rewritten every 20 years.

Which is why core principles matter as much (if not more) as literal interpretation.

The 2nd Amendment was written as a check on federal power. It's absurd to then argue that the supposed supremacy of federal power renders the issue moot. In the context of the clear intent of the Constitutional contract that joins our States, the 2nd Amendment is needed now more than ever. Any effort to further encumber it should be resisted.

BroncoBeavis
04-08-2013, 04:01 PM
I'm sure some would have conflict of emotions but in their training they do go over scenarios where martial law is declared. Obviously I think a soldier is loyal to his family 1st and foremost but after that it's to the service, not strangers they would not even know, even if they are Americans.

Well in their Oath, their first allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States. The idea that our predominately Red-State military would blindly carry out Blue State orders against Red State civil liberty is interesting. Not realistic, but interesting.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 04:15 PM
Well in their Oath, their first allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States. The idea that our predominately Red-State military would blindly carry out Blue State orders against Red State civil liberty is interesting. Not realistic, but interesting.

1st it isn't a red state military,it's the US military. 2nd they also swear to follow the orders of the president,not any given governor of a state. 3rd if this scenario even happened it would be cuz one or more red states decided to violate the constitution & tried to succeed. So our military if were to take the red states side would by definition be committing treason.

ant1999e
04-08-2013, 04:47 PM
1st it isn't a red state military,it's the US military. 2nd they also swear to follow the orders of the president,not any given governor of a state. 3rd if this scenario even happened it would be cuz one or more red states decided to violate the constitution & tried to succeed. So our military if were to take the red states side would by definition be committing treason.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

ant1999e
04-08-2013, 04:48 PM
I'm sure some would have conflict of emotions but in their training they do go over scenarios where martial law is declared. Obviously I think a soldier is loyal to his family 1st and foremost but after that it's to the service, not strangers they would not even know, even if they are Americans.

Country before government.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 04:53 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 04:55 PM
Country before government.

We the people are the country & we the people are the government. One & the same.

ant1999e
04-08-2013, 05:44 PM
We the people are the country & we the people are the government. One & the same.

Not anymore.

errand
04-08-2013, 07:24 PM
Funny that you bring up SCOTUS,considering they ruled guns can be regulated,including the ban of certain guns.

the same people who brought you the Dred Scott decision ......

like I said they don't always make the right decision

errand
04-08-2013, 07:35 PM
Are those in the military not also "the people"?

there's a reason why the oath a military man takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign or domestic.

Domestic enemies could include our own government and lawmakers ..... not to mention many of the current law abiding gun owners in America are former military members who know to organize a plan train andhow to use the equipment.

ZONA
04-08-2013, 08:39 PM
there's a reason why the oath a military man takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign or domestic.

Domestic enemies could include our own government and lawmakers ..... not to mention many of the current law abiding gun owners in America are former military members who know to organize a plan train andhow to use the equipment.

Would not matter if they were former Navy seals. The president would declare martial law and with that any means necessary to secure the government. They would have a hard time organizing when the government turned off cell phone and internet satellites. In fact, it could be harder to organize then it would have been 200 years ago. They were not reliant on the internet and phones back then and they had means to organize where as now days, those other means are not practiced, there's no real structure in place for that.

Regardless - nobody could predict how something like that would turn out. It would be pure chaos. The closest thing we have as an example would be what the Nazi party did in Germany. This isn't some ragged 3rd world country with a few jets, a battleship maybe and everybody carrying an AK. Our government would have all the advantages. Satellites, CIA and FBI intelligence, weapons galore.

What's funny to me is that most die hard Repubs are for more military spending and making the military even bigger. We all already know how big and strong it is now. But the die hard Repubs on the other hand want to have means to "counter act" as somebody said before, our own military.

You can't have it both ways. Our military is already so big and so powerful there's nothing "the people" could do if martial law was enforced.

Gimmie a break. AR-15's, glocks and some pepper spray against missiles, fighter jets, apache's, drones and probably some secret ass **** we never even heard of before.

ghwk
04-08-2013, 08:58 PM
It's a little more complex than that. I don't understand why it is so utterly unfathomable that a people successfully resist tyranny from a government or larger more powerful military. Revolutionary War, Soviet/Afghan War for examples. Yes, in each the weaker force was assisted by a larger but who's to say it can't happen? A civilian force fighting for freedom has more to lose than a corrupt government thus will fight harder. Add to that my point on the military also being of the people, many but not all would shift sides (national guard/reserve units). Now if you disarm the people, there is no hope.

Who in Gods name is talking about disarming the people? Where is this delusion coming from?

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 09:44 PM
Who in Gods name is talking about disarming the people? Where is this delusion coming from?
Exactly. It's why you can't anything they say serious.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 08:08 AM
Would not matter if they were former Navy seals. The president would declare martial law and with that any means necessary to secure the government. They would have a hard time organizing when the government turned off cell phone and internet satellites. In fact, it could be harder to organize then it would have been 200 years ago. They were not reliant on the internet and phones back then and they had means to organize where as now days, those other means are not practiced, there's no real structure in place for that.

Come now. The President couldn't manage to lock down a White House social mixer, let alone a national superpower. LOL

You invest far far too much power in the Presidency. He possesses no internet or telco network kill switch. Many of those can operate fairly autonomously without any help or connection to the world outside.

Rigs11
04-09-2013, 09:48 AM
The right keep shooting themselves in the foot.They are going to stop a vote on gun legislation. More filibusters, more obstrucionism.What are they scared of?Expect a resounding ass kicking in next year's elections.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 10:00 AM
the same people who brought you the Dred Scott decision ......

like I said they don't always make the right decision
You may not agree with all the decisions scotus makes,I don't agree with all them either. At the end of the day they have the final say on what's constitutional and what isn't. Not you or me.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 10:01 AM
there's a reason why the oath a military man takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign or domestic.

Domestic enemies could include our own government and lawmakers ..... not to mention many of the current law abiding gun owners in America are former military members who know to organize a plan train andhow to use the equipment.
They also,in that same oath,swear to follow the orders of the president.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 10:03 AM
Not anymore.

Always has been. your side of the aisle being in the minority,doesn't change that.

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 10:50 AM
Police chiefs are politicians appointed by politicians. Sheriffs are locally elected police officers who have spent their careers on the streets.

See the ideological difference?

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 10:57 AM
The right keep shooting themselves in the foot.They are going to stop a vote on gun legislation. More filibusters, more obstrucionism.What are they scared of?Expect a resounding ass kicking in next year's elections.

What I find most amusing is how liberals had their asses kicked in the Heller decision and they won't admit it. Further, I'm tickled to no end that they've had to admit the legitimacy of home defense laws and conceal carry laws - both of which most liberals and liberal legislators fought tooth and nail against from the get-go with alarmist fearmongering such as Wild West imagery and aren't man enough to admit these alarmist scenarios never happened once these laws were passed.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 11:01 AM
What I find most amusing is how liberals had their asses kicked in the Heller decision and they won't admit it. Further, I'm tickled to no end that they've had to admit the legitimacy of home defense laws and conceal carry laws - both of which most liberals and liberal legislators fought tooth and nail against from the get-go with alarmist fearmongering such as Wild West imagery and aren't man enough to admit these alarmist scenarios never happened once these laws were passed.

It's the Heller decision that ruled that guns can be regulated,including the banning of certain guns. Hell it was your boy scalia who wrote it.

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

DC at the time had a ban on owning handguns,and was rightfully overruled by scotus. Along with that ruling came this.