Liberal Logic 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libsmart Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > "Liberty is for wimps" certainly does seem to
> feel
> > manlier surrounded by his guns: "AMERICA IS FOR
> > GUNS AND REAL MEN!!!!" To me that declaration
> > speaks volumes, making me hope that he has
> neither
> > wife nor children and that he's young enough to
> go
> > back to school to discover dimensions of
> American
> > culture that are truly worth embracing. Once
> they
> > get over their need to separate from their
> mothers
> > and to prove their superiority by bullying
> other
> > males, REAL men open themselves up to their
> full
> > humanity.
> >
> > As for owning guns for protection, I can
> > understand that there are circumstances under
> > which that would be prudent--if I were living
> in
> > some remote part of the country, for example.
> But
> > I personally would not want to live with the
> > fortress mentality you express. I was even
> > reluctant to install an alarm system in my
> house,
> > including a panic button, for fear that it
> would
> > foster that mind set in me. I've made my peace
> > with it by now and only set the alarm when I am
> > out. Social-scientific research demonstrates
> wide
> > variations in how dangerous people feel the
> world
> > is. In that regard, Republicans are far more
> > likely to own guns than Democrats. There are a
> > whole lot of other attitudes that go with gun
> > ownership, though the NRA has done all it can
> to
> > discourage such research.
> >
> > I also remind you that guns in homes are far
> more
> > likely to take the lives of their occupants
> than
> > of any intruder. How many guns, by the way, do
> you
> > consider it necessary to feel protected? In
> spite
> > of his arsenal of guns, some immediately at
> hand,
> > the guy on FPSRussia (Youtube) got taken out by
> a
> > single shot to the head. Any lesson there?
>
> Yes the lesson is that you live in some fantasy
> academic world and clearly dont understand real
> life. No ones forcing you to have a gun.
> Criminals will have them regardless. If you dont
> want one thats fine dont have one, the
> constitution wasnt written to pick and choose what
> you like and have that be the law of the land.
>
> Since you want to bring up studies, studies also
> show gun crime is highest in places were guns are
> banned. Other studies show children are most
> likely to be kidnapped or molested by a family
> member or family friend, should people not have
> friends or allow their family around their kids?
> Your stat about guns being more likely to kill
> someone in the house is completely irrelevant. If
> your responsible and know what youre doing, and
> teach your family about them theres little to no
> chance of that happening.
>
> Also someone with a gun gets killed so that means
> they dont work? Anyone with a brain would
> understand nothing makes you 100 percent safe, but
> Ill take the chance of being able to defend myself
> then hoping the criminal with the gun is merciful
> any day.
>
> Basically what weve learned is you live in a
> fantasy world and believe yourself to be morally
> superior to everyone else despite having little to
> no grasp on reality or the ability to logically
> think about what you read.


I see that, for whatever reason, you have contempt for academicians, viewing us as out of touch with reality. I naturally regret that, given our dedication to unbiased and systematic exploration of the human and natural worlds. Unlike you, we resist allowing our own experience and prejudices to determine our conclusions (or at least we are supposed to). If not for you, then, but for others who are more likely to weigh broad-based, systematic research over cherry-picked bits of findings, I refer to the following study coming out of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

They summarize their findings thusly: “Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

Judging from what you write, you are not in a position to evaluate how logical my thinking is. And by the way, your apostrophe key seems not to be working.

dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals always change the subject. They are
> constitutionally incapable of having a rational
> conversation. They never respond to the statements
> or questions being posed to them by someone on the
> right. Let's have a pro gun rally in opposition to
> their protest on a saturday of course.


Don't you mean dying breed? I assume that, if you've read the rest of this thread, you realize that you are wrong in every respect, that it is the conservatives that you are describing. Let's hope that you are indeed a dying breed.

dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals always change the subject. They are
> constitutionally incapable of having a rational
> conversation. They never respond to the statements
> or questions being posed to them by someone on the
> right. Let's have a pro gun rally in opposition to
> their protest on a saturday of course.


Don't you mean dying breed? I assume that, if you've read the rest of this thread, you realize that you are wrong in every respect--that it is the conservatives whom you are describing. Let's hope that you are indeed a dying breed.

Libsmart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I see that, for whatever reason, you have contempt
> for academicians, viewing us as out of touch with
> reality. I naturally regret that, given our
> dedication to unbiased and systematic exploration
> of the human and natural worlds. Unlike you, we
> resist allowing our own experience and prejudices
> to determine our conclusions (or at least we are
> supposed to). If not for you, then, but for others
> who are more likely to weigh broad-based,
> systematic research over cherry-picked bits of
> findings, I refer to the following study coming
> out of the Harvard Injury Control Research
> Center:
>
> Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm
> availability and homicide: A review of the
> literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A
> Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
>
> They summarize their findings thusly: “Our
> review of the academic literature found that a
> broad array of evidence indicates that gun
> availability is a risk factor for homicide, both
> in the United States and across high-income
> countries. Case-control studies, ecological
> time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate
> that in homes, cities, states and regions in the
> US, where there are more guns, both men and women
> are at higher risk for homicide, particularly
> firearm homicide.”
>
> Judging from what you write, you are not in a
> position to evaluate how logical my thinking is.
> And by the way, your apostrophe key seems not to
> be working.

And if by all that you mean they design studies to fit their own beliefs when its pushing a liberal agenda. Its not hard to design something to get your outcome. For example if you want guns to look bad you look at them on the state level which ignored that the crime is concentrated in the cities (crime does concentrate its called Hot Spots but you dont know that either) throwing off the levels for the pro gun areas.

Funny how you post a single study then ignore all the other ones that prove the opposite. Or how about the CDC one which is as anti gun as its gets yet admits the assault weapons ban did nothing.

Or how about we get into crime theory about how crimes happen because of a suitable victim, a capable offender, and a lack of a guardian. So your response is to remove as many possible guardians as possible and just leave potential victims and offenders everywhere brilliant.

Or explain to me why gun crime is the highest where guns are banned, it couldnt possibly have anything to do with the fact that theres no guardians around.

Or how police are a responsive force not a proactive force.

Or why theres more guns in the country than ever before yet gun crime has been declining for years?

The one thing youve made clear is that your a sociologist and clearly have little to no understanding of criminology. Leave the criminology to us criminologists. Ill stick to actual facts while you can keep pushing your agenda

Typical heterosexual male logic. Walk a mile in my shoes and you will see how much oppression is around you - and you gun owners are the worst. If you could simply sit down and talk to the criminals you could see that they would be willing to give up their guns for a more peaceful society!

@Liberal Logic 101: +1

Libsmart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical heterosexual male logic. Walk a mile in
> my shoes and you will see how much oppression is
> around you - and you gun owners are the worst. If
> you could simply sit down and talk to the
> criminals you could see that they would be willing
> to give up their guns for a more peaceful society!


This person is not the Libsmart of the previous remarks under that screen name.

Liberal Logic 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libsmart Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I see that, for whatever reason, you have
> contempt
> > for academicians, viewing us as out of touch
> with
> > reality. I naturally regret that, given our
> > dedication to unbiased and systematic
> exploration
> > of the human and natural worlds. Unlike you, we
> > resist allowing our own experience and
> prejudices
> > to determine our conclusions (or at least we
> are
> > supposed to). If not for you, then, but for
> others
> > who are more likely to weigh broad-based,
> > systematic research over cherry-picked bits of
> > findings, I refer to the following study coming
> > out of the Harvard Injury Control Research
> > Center:
> >
> > Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm
> > availability and homicide: A review of the
> > literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A
> > Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
> >
> > They summarize their findings thusly: “Our
> > review of the academic literature found that a
> > broad array of evidence indicates that gun
> > availability is a risk factor for homicide,
> both
> > in the United States and across high-income
> > countries. Case-control studies, ecological
> > time-series and cross-sectional studies
> indicate
> > that in homes, cities, states and regions in
> the
> > US, where there are more guns, both men and
> women
> > are at higher risk for homicide, particularly
> > firearm homicide.”
> >
> > Judging from what you write, you are not in a
> > position to evaluate how logical my thinking
> is.
> > And by the way, your apostrophe key seems not
> to
> > be working.
>
> And if by all that you mean they design studies to
> fit their own beliefs when its pushing a liberal
> agenda. Its not hard to design something to get
> your outcome. For example if you want guns to
> look bad you look at them on the state level which
> ignored that the crime is concentrated in the
> cities (crime does concentrate its called Hot
> Spots but you dont know that either) throwing off
> the levels for the pro gun areas.
>
> Funny how you post a single study then ignore all
> the other ones that prove the opposite. Or how
> about the CDC one which is as anti gun as its gets
> yet admits the assault weapons ban did nothing.
>
> Or how about we get into crime theory about how
> crimes happen because of a suitable victim, a
> capable offender, and a lack of a guardian. So
> your response is to remove as many possible
> guardians as possible and just leave potential
> victims and offenders everywhere brilliant.
>
> Or explain to me why gun crime is the highest
> where guns are banned, it couldnt possibly have
> anything to do with the fact that theres no
> guardians around.
>
> Or how police are a responsive force not a
> proactive force.
>
> Or why theres more guns in the country than ever
> before yet gun crime has been declining for
> years?
>
> The one thing youve made clear is that your a
> sociologist and clearly have little to no
> understanding of criminology. Leave the
> criminology to us criminologists. Ill stick to
> actual facts while you can keep pushing your
> agenda


If you are truly a criminologist, properly so-called--the quality of your thinking and writing suggests otherwise--please cite some studies that support your claims. And rather than casually dismissing research that counters your preconceptions, provide a proper critique of the study if you think it was biased. As a criminologist, you must be well acquainted with it. I'd also like your views on what happened in Australia after they banned military-style weapons. I am not a sociologist, by the way.

Libsmart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you are truly a criminologist, properly
> so-called--the quality of your thinking and
> writing suggests otherwise--please cite some
> studies that support your claims. And rather than
> casually dismissing research that counters your
> preconceptions, provide a proper critique of the
> study if you think it was biased. As a
> criminologist, you must be well acquainted with
> it. I'd also like your views on what happened in
> Australia after they banned military-style
> weapons. I am not a sociologist, by the way.

You can look them up on your own Im sure you have access to Justor and Lexisnexis, Chris Koper has some I can think of off the top of my head. Criminology doesnt use studies based off of health organizations they are all anti gun and extremely biased. Anything from a health journal I dont have to read to tell you their conclusion.

A simple look at the gun violence in cities and then the FBI reports also tells you that the vast majority of gun violence is in cities where its banned. If you really want to reduce gun violence, get young black men to stop joining gangs as they are disproportionally responsible for it. You can also look up hot spots policing (braga and weisburd do a lot of them) and youll see about 3% of addresses are responsible for the vast majority of police calls.

We arent Australia, what they do doesnt apply to us. Theyre an island nation a fraction of our size with at FAR FAR greater control of their boarders then we could ever have. England doesnt allow guns period yet has gun crime. We have Mexico on our boarder, hows the ban on drugs working out. Guns would be and are the same story, gangs dont buy illegal weapons from the gun store. Not even getting into the fact that the right to own them is constitutionally protected and right behind free speech it was so important. And no the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

You do also understand ALL rifles are responsible for between 300-400 murders a year, assault rifles are a fraction of that. They dont even crack the top 5 and probably 10 ways people are murdered or the top 100 ways people die. Again theirs 300 million guns in the country and a little under 12k murders a year, youre talking about less than half of one percent. If that was our standard for everything not a single medicine would be on the market today. Murder has also been declining for years despite increasing gun sales every year.

All bans do is keep people from legally owning them. People that kill people dont care if they can have a gun or not. Murder is illegal already that hasnt stopped anyone. Suicides are irrelevant to the topic as well that many health journals include, if someone wants to kill themselves they will. Crimes of passion are also iffy, if you come home and find your wife in bed with someone else and are the type of person who would then shoot them not having a gun isnt going to stop you from trying. Maybe a percentage would end without murder but in a lot of the cases where someone would have been shot someone is going to die or be seriously injured before the encounter ends. Common sense needs to start being applied to how we look at things. Its not the gun that kills people its the person behind it. Take away the gun and that doesnt remove the intent.

Furthermore criminals freely admit that they like easy targets. Again going back to crime theory its risk reward for them. Banks get robbed because people think theyll get a huge payoff. The harder a target the more reward there has to be. Giving them a disarmed public where all they have to worry about is the police just gives them easy targets everywhere with little to no risk. Plenty of common robbers never get caught but the police dont like to advertise that. You could have someones wallet or purse before someone else could have even explained the situation to 911 if anyone even bothered to call.

Utah has very few car jackings because in Utah if someone even attempts to take your car its legal to shoot them. Thats a lot of risk for not a lot of reward for criminals. The ONLY way police can influence crime is by increasing the perception of getting caught. The same applies to guns, if you do not know what the other person has youre more likely not to commit a crime of opportunity. If you know all the citizens are disarmed opportunity is everywhere with very few guardians.

As far as the mass shootings go that started all this talk, if you want to stop those get the media to stop hounding them. It creates copy cat crimes for one. But more importantly it makes the shooter famous. The people that do that are sick individuals and/or mentally ill, it gives them a way to make their mark on history on their way out. It should also be noted the mall shooting was stopped by a citizen with a gun, a movie theater shooting was stopped by an off duty cop with a gun.

The way to stop bad guys with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, police wont be there to help for 20-30 minutes minimum before they consider going in. Unlike movies the first cops that arrive dont go rushing in. They wait for backup and most of the time for the swat team to get there meanwhile the shooter is completely unopposed. Neither magazine size or weapon type makes any difference when your an unopposed shooter. The VT shooter used two low power hand guns and inflicted massive damage because no one was there to do anything about it.

The whole assault rifle thing being so much more dangerous is nothing more than a media driven scare story for headlines. They always say semi-automatic to get the word automatic in there. Every gun since the mid 1800s has been semi-auto. All the means is that if you pull the trigger one bullet is fried, revolvers work the same way. All the assault rifles are is a normal rifle with difference cosmetic features. There isnt a military in the world using what we sell in stores. For the situations in question any gun other than a musket would do the same amount of damage.

And its FFU look around at the posts, Im not going to bother proof reading on here. It doesnt make anything I say any less true.

@Liberal logic 101: +1 again. Them Libtards just always get their panties in a bind because they have no real argument!

+1 @liberal logic 101

yepp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 @liberal logic 101

Are you fat and wear tactical pants?

Cheap knives Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yepp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > +1 @liberal logic 101
>
> Are you fat and wear tactical pants?


niether.... is it common for all libtards to make stupid assumptions.

i know that they never debate with relevant material

Libsmart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libsmart Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Typical heterosexual male logic. Walk a mile
> in
> > my shoes and you will see how much oppression
> is
> > around you - and you gun owners are the worst.
> If
> > you could simply sit down and talk to the
> > criminals you could see that they would be
> willing
> > to give up their guns for a more peaceful
> society!
>
>
> This person is not the Libsmart of the previous
> remarks under that screen name.


This person is not the Libsmart of the previous remarks under that screen name.

yepp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cheap knives Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yepp Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > +1 @liberal logic 101
> >
> > Are you fat and wear tactical pants?
>
>
> niether.... is it common for all libtards to make
> stupid assumptions.

The photographs suggest otherwise. Who else would wait in line to look at guns. Are do they go to view the Nazi paraphernalia? I only attend the SHOT show every three years.

Liberal Logic 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libsmart Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > If you are truly a criminologist, properly
> > so-called--the quality of your thinking and
> > writing suggests otherwise--please cite some
> > studies that support your claims. And rather
> than
> > casually dismissing research that counters your
> > preconceptions, provide a proper critique of
> the
> > study if you think it was biased. As a
> > criminologist, you must be well acquainted with
> > it. I'd also like your views on what happened
> in
> > Australia after they banned military-style
> > weapons. I am not a sociologist, by the way.
>
> You can look them up on your own Im sure you have
> access to Justor and Lexisnexis, Chris Koper has
> some I can think of off the top of my head.
> Criminology doesnt use studies based off of health
> organizations they are all anti gun and extremely
> biased. Anything from a health journal I dont
> have to read to tell you their conclusion.
>
> A simple look at the gun violence in cities and
> then the FBI reports also tells you that the vast
> majority of gun violence is in cities where its
> banned. If you really want to reduce gun
> violence, get young black men to stop joining
> gangs as they are disproportionally responsible
> for it. You can also look up hot spots policing
> (braga and weisburd do a lot of them) and youll
> see about 3% of addresses are responsible for the
> vast majority of police calls.
>
> We arent Australia, what they do doesnt apply to
> us. Theyre an island nation a fraction of our
> size with at FAR FAR greater control of their
> boarders then we could ever have. England doesnt
> allow guns period yet has gun crime. We have
> Mexico on our boarder, hows the ban on drugs
> working out. Guns would be and are the same
> story, gangs dont buy illegal weapons from the gun
> store. Not even getting into the fact that the
> right to own them is constitutionally protected
> and right behind free speech it was so important.
> And no the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with
> hunting.
>
> You do also understand ALL rifles are responsible
> for between 300-400 murders a year, assault rifles
> are a fraction of that. They dont even crack the
> top 5 and probably 10 ways people are murdered or
> the top 100 ways people die. Again theirs 300
> million guns in the country and a little under 12k
> murders a year, youre talking about less than half
> of one percent. If that was our standard for
> everything not a single medicine would be on the
> market today. Murder has also been declining for
> years despite increasing gun sales every year.
>
> All bans do is keep people from legally owning
> them. People that kill people dont care if they
> can have a gun or not. Murder is illegal already
> that hasnt stopped anyone. Suicides are
> irrelevant to the topic as well that many health
> journals include, if someone wants to kill
> themselves they will. Crimes of passion are also
> iffy, if you come home and find your wife in bed
> with someone else and are the type of person who
> would then shoot them not having a gun isnt going
> to stop you from trying. Maybe a percentage would
> end without murder but in a lot of the cases where
> someone would have been shot someone is going to
> die or be seriously injured before the encounter
> ends. Common sense needs to start being applied
> to how we look at things. Its not the gun that
> kills people its the person behind it. Take away
> the gun and that doesnt remove the intent.
>
> Furthermore criminals freely admit that they like
> easy targets. Again going back to crime theory
> its risk reward for them. Banks get robbed
> because people think theyll get a huge payoff.
> The harder a target the more reward there has to
> be. Giving them a disarmed public where all they
> have to worry about is the police just gives them
> easy targets everywhere with little to no risk.
> Plenty of common robbers never get caught but the
> police dont like to advertise that. You could
> have someones wallet or purse before someone else
> could have even explained the situation to 911 if
> anyone even bothered to call.
>
> Utah has very few car jackings because in Utah if
> someone even attempts to take your car its legal
> to shoot them. Thats a lot of risk for not a lot
> of reward for criminals. The ONLY way police can
> influence crime is by increasing the perception of
> getting caught. The same applies to guns, if you
> do not know what the other person has youre more
> likely not to commit a crime of opportunity. If
> you know all the citizens are disarmed opportunity
> is everywhere with very few guardians.
>
> As far as the mass shootings go that started all
> this talk, if you want to stop those get the media
> to stop hounding them. It creates copy cat crimes
> for one. But more importantly it makes the
> shooter famous. The people that do that are sick
> individuals and/or mentally ill, it gives them a
> way to make their mark on history on their way
> out. It should also be noted the mall shooting
> was stopped by a citizen with a gun, a movie
> theater shooting was stopped by an off duty cop
> with a gun.
>
> The way to stop bad guys with a gun is with a good
> guy with a gun, police wont be there to help for
> 20-30 minutes minimum before they consider going
> in. Unlike movies the first cops that arrive dont
> go rushing in. They wait for backup and most of
> the time for the swat team to get there meanwhile
> the shooter is completely unopposed. Neither
> magazine size or weapon type makes any difference
> when your an unopposed shooter. The VT shooter
> used two low power hand guns and inflicted massive
> damage because no one was there to do anything
> about it.
>
> The whole assault rifle thing being so much more
> dangerous is nothing more than a media driven
> scare story for headlines. They always say
> semi-automatic to get the word automatic in there.
> Every gun since the mid 1800s has been semi-auto.
> All the means is that if you pull the trigger one
> bullet is fried, revolvers work the same way. All
> the assault rifles are is a normal rifle with
> difference cosmetic features. There isnt a
> military in the world using what we sell in
> stores. For the situations in question any gun
> other than a musket would do the same amount of
> damage.
>
> And its FFU look around at the posts, Im not going
> to bother proof reading on here. It doesnt make
> anything I say any less true.


"Liberal Logic 101" demonstrates in this reply what seems too often to be the case, that logic and reasonable discourse either lie beyond the gun lover's capabilities or are swamped by their blind emotional attachment to their cherished weapons. LL 101 remarks that, "Again theirs [sic] 300 million guns in the country and a little under 12k murders a year, youre [sic] talking about less than half of one percent." Wonderful--just 12 thousand gun killings a year when there is a capability for many more! The appropriate comparison would be with the murder rate in countries with reasonable gun-control laws and without the gun culture that has pervasively infected the United States. The Newtown tragedy has helped to personalize the cost of this culture, but LL 101 is correct that such mass killings make up a tiny proportion of gun deaths each year. For more usual situations, see Joe Nocera's column in today's (Jan. 29, 2013) New York Times, "And in Last Week's Gun News..." There he quotes reports of 14 gun incidents, the last of which concludes by noting that "Chicago's homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008." The irrational defensiveness of many gun owners is particularly reflected in the NRA's till-now successful opposition to research on gun violence beyond the annual tolls. The ease with which LL 101 denigrates such research as does exist illustrates the uphill battle for reasonable discussions that lies ahead in spite of the new resolve at both the state and national levels.

Libsmart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "Liberal Logic 101" demonstrates in this reply
> what seems too often to be the case, that logic
> and reasonable discourse either lie beyond the gun
> lover's capabilities or are swamped by their blind
> emotional attachment to their cherished weapons.
> LL 101 remarks that, "Again theirs [sic] 300
> million guns in the country and a little under 12k
> murders a year, youre [sic] talking about less
> than half of one percent." Wonderful--just 12
> thousand gun killings a year when there is a
> capability for many more! The appropriate
> comparison would be with the murder rate in
> countries with reasonable gun-control laws and
> without the gun culture that has pervasively
> infected the United States. The Newtown tragedy
> has helped to personalize the cost of this
> culture, but LL 101 is correct that such mass
> killings make up a tiny proportion of gun deaths
> each year. For more usual situations, see Joe
> Nocera's column in today's (Jan. 29, 2013) New
> York Times, "And in Last Week's Gun News..." There
> he quotes reports of 14 gun incidents, the last of
> which concludes by noting that "Chicago's homicide
> count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time
> since 2008." The irrational defensiveness of many
> gun owners is particularly reflected in the NRA's
> till-now successful opposition to research on gun
> violence beyond the annual tolls. The ease with
> which LL 101 denigrates such research as does
> exist illustrates the uphill battle for reasonable
> discussions that lies ahead in spite of the new
> resolve at both the state and national levels.


You didnt write a single fact or male a single argument.

Very typical. Cant dispute the facts and have nothing left to say so just turn it into name calling.

You can just go ahead and stop now. You are either a very poor academic or just a troll claiming to be one. Eitherway its very obvious you dont know what to say when it gets off the talking points to you as you didnt bother to address anything thats been said and thats not the first time youve done that. For the sake of college kids I hope you are a troll

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You didnt write a single fact or male a single
> argument.
>
> Very typical. Cant dispute the facts and have
> nothing left to say so just turn it into name
> calling.
>
> You can just go ahead and stop now. You are
> either a very poor academic or just a troll
> claiming to be one. Eitherway its very obvious
> you dont know what to say when it gets off the
> talking points to you as you didnt bother to
> address anything thats been said and thats not the
> first time youve done that. For the sake of
> college kids I hope you are a troll


No shit. They talk about emotional issues and then go on, as typical for anti-gun nuts, to make a wholly emotional argument and one which is based on complete fantasy. lol

Citing deaths in Chicago speaks to the same. Nothing that is done to limit guns on the part of legal owners will do a damn thing to affect that. Nor what happened at Sandy Hook. You can whine and cry and stamp your feet and hope as much as you want, but that's the practical reality.

You want to do something about gun crime and gun-related murder, then you'll get far more practical results from deal with hard issues like drugs and drug laws, gang violence, education and economic disparity, family structure, and other root causes than you ever will through gun laws which are ignored by the primary elements in our society who responsible for the higher stats.

We all know that the majority of the U.S. military will never turn on American citizens but a foriegn army most definitly will, especialy if we owe them trillions of dollars and we default on the loans. China is positioning their pieces just like in chess and our prostitute politicians are working hard to DISARM the American people because of pressure from the U.N. and China! The dollar has been the worlds reserve currency for a long time and thanks to privatly owned Federal Reserve exploiting the shit out of it, the dollar is an extremely weak currency right now and is on the verge of collapse and the rest of the world knows it! So I say, fuck Obama and ANY new "gun control" laws!! Dont give them up, dont register them and start buying ammo now before its too late! If you want freedom, you have to be willing to fight to keep it!!


http://www.policymic.com/articles/8603/china-to-build-cities-and-economic-zones-in-michigan-and-idaho


http://www.infowars.com/does-china-plan-to-establish-china-cities-and-special-economic-zones-all-over-america/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M09HKwSFffE

They're hopeless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You want to do something about gun crime and
> gun-related murder, then you'll get far more
> practical results from deal with hard issues like
> drugs and drug laws, gang violence, education and
> economic disparity, family structure, and other
> root causes than you ever will through gun laws
> which are ignored by the primary elements in our
> society who responsible for the higher stats.

Exactly this. The vast majority of gun crime is gang related, solve the gang issues and gun crime plummets. Taking away guns does nothing but turn more places into Chicago. The guns arent the issue, the vast majority of high gun places have very low gun crime, its the people that make the difference.

In the end though most of the anti gun people really dont seem to care about facts or even what would reduce crime. They just hate guns and want them gone and use gun crime as something to hide behind as opposed to just saying I dont like them so you cant have it. Ive yet to see a single poster on this cite has a rational well thought factual debate from the anti-gun side and thats not something that is specific to this site either.

There isnt a single crime theory that supports disarming the public would solve the problem. IF you destroyed every gun in the world yes that would solve gun crime, but a lot of places with no guns have higher other crime rates. Russia has horrible murder rates they just dont happen with guns. Its also absurd that they seem to have this idea that everything can be prevented. Murders are going to happen they always have and always will. You cant protect from everything and there are far more dangerous things in life than the chance of being a victim of gun violence unless you live in a terrible area

Libsmart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben F. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Libsmart Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thanks, Brian, for your long answer, which
> > bring
> > > us a little closer to a reasonable dialogue.
> > You
> > > ask why I care why gun collectors cherish
> their
> > > weapons—and weapons they are, no denying
> > that,
> > > even if they are never use to kill another
> > human
> > > being. Let’s not forget that these guns are
> > very
> > > frequently used to kill other animals, which
> > are
> > > sentient creatures defenseless against
> > > humankind’s weapons. What is sporting about
> > > that? Used for hunting, guns create over and
> > over
> > > again the experience of killing—socially
> > > sanctioned, of course—and thus they
> > contribute
> > > to the American culture of violence that
> > extends
> > > back to the European “discovery” of
> America
> > > and reaches into the presence in the form,
> > among
> > > other things, of football, the dire physical
> > costs
> > > of which—-chronic traumatic
> > encephalopathy--we
> > > are finally coming to appreciate. You said
> that
> > no
> > > one asks why Harley enthusiasts love their
> > > “hogs” so much after a motorcycle death.
> > But
> > > that’s not true. Whenever motorcyclists
> zoom
> > > down the highway, helmetless and weaving in
> and
> > > out of the traffic, or through my
> neighborhood,
> > > apparently reveling in the noise they are
> > making,
> > > I wonder why having such powerful machines
> > between
> > > their legs is so important to them. Every
> > object
> > > has what psychologists call a physiognomy—a
> > way
> > > of appearing. The choice of the object one
> > > collects is not accidental; we choose objects
> > > whose physiognomy in some way satisfies needs
> > we
> > > have. Unlike collecting, say, stamps or
> coins,
> > > guns and motorcycles are powerful extensions
> of
> > > the human body. That men embrace them far
> more
> > > than women is not insignificant in this
> regard.
> > As
> > > such extensions, they can play havoc in the
> > lives
> > > both of those who collect them and of those
> > they
> > > are aimed at. _Of course_ it is appropriate
> to
> > > judge persons by their interests; we do that
> > all
> > > the time in creating our circles of
> friendship.
> > So
> > > I come back round to my original question,
> for
> > you
> > > and all other gun collectors: Why did you
> > choose
> > > guns to collect? And why are you so
> reflexively
> > > defensive of your hobby, seemingly oblivious
> to
> > > the ramifications of our gun culture? These
> are
> > > question for you to ponder for yourself; I
> > don’t
> > > need to know anything about your personal
> > > dynamics.
> >
> > My guns are for protection and not some hobby.
> > You must live a sheltered life and have never
> ever
> > had to protect or defend the lives of yourself,
> > your family, or your property. When things go
> > south they go south in a hurry, and the police
> are
> > not going to be there to protect you. If you
> > think otherwise you are a fool. I was in St.
> > Croix when Hugo hit in 1989. It was chaos.
> > Looting and rapes were rampant. It was worse
> in
> > Haiti after the earthquake in 2010. Don’t
> think
> > it could happen here? What about Katrina or
> the
> > looting that took place in Staten Island and
> > Rockaway Beach after Sandy. And for all you
> > people accusing gun owners of wanting to act
> > tough, grow up. Guns sure as hell don’t make
> > people manlier, but they give you a chance when
> > the wolves are at your door. The wolves
> don’t
> > listen to pleas or reasoning, but they respect
> > bullets.
>
> "Liberty is for wimps" certainly does seem to feel
> manlier surrounded by his guns: "AMERICA IS FOR
> GUNS AND REAL MEN!!!!" To me that declaration
> speaks volumes, making me hope that he has neither
> wife nor children and that he's young enough to go
> back to school to discover dimensions of American
> culture that are truly worth embracing. Once they
> get over their need to separate from their mothers
> and to prove their superiority by bullying other
> males, REAL men open themselves up to their full
> humanity.
>
> As for owning guns for protection, I can
> understand that there are circumstances under
> which that would be prudent--if I were living in
> some remote part of the country, for example. But
> I personally would not want to live with the
> fortress mentality you express. I was even
> reluctant to install an alarm system in my house,
> including a panic button, for fear that it would
> foster that mind set in me. I've made my peace
> with it by now and only set the alarm when I am
> out. Social-scientific research demonstrates wide
> variations in how dangerous people feel the world
> is. In that regard, Republicans are far more
> likely to own guns than Democrats. There are a
> whole lot of other attitudes that go with gun
> ownership, though the NRA has done all it can to
> discourage such research.
>
> I also remind you that guns in homes are far more
> likely to take the lives of their occupants than
> of any intruder. How many guns, by the way, do you
> consider it necessary to feel protected? In spite
> of his arsenal of guns, some immediately at hand,
> the guy on FPSRussia (Youtube) got taken out by a
> single shot to the head. Any lesson there?


When all else fails attack someone's manliness eh? Thoughtful, but go F&*K yourself. I have, can, and will protect my family. I'm glad you live such an insular life, but I won’t feel sorry for you when your bubble finally bursts. You are a naive sheep that views the world through Disney glasses. How much regret will you feel when that day comes and you can't protect your family. Maybe you can call 911; I hope your family survives.

Ben F. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libsmart Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ben F. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Libsmart Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Thanks, Brian, for your long answer, which
> > > bring
> > > > us a little closer to a reasonable
> dialogue.
> > > You
> > > > ask why I care why gun collectors cherish
> > their
> > > > weapons—and weapons they are, no denying
> > > that,
> > > > even if they are never use to kill another
> > > human
> > > > being. Let’s not forget that these guns
> are
> > > very
> > > > frequently used to kill other animals,
> which
> > > are
> > > > sentient creatures defenseless against
> > > > humankind’s weapons. What is sporting
> about
> > > > that? Used for hunting, guns create over
> and
> > > over
> > > > again the experience of killing—socially
> > > > sanctioned, of course—and thus they
> > > contribute
> > > > to the American culture of violence that
> > > extends
> > > > back to the European “discovery” of
> > America
> > > > and reaches into the presence in the form,
> > > among
> > > > other things, of football, the dire
> physical
> > > costs
> > > > of which—-chronic traumatic
> > > encephalopathy--we
> > > > are finally coming to appreciate. You said
> > that
> > > no
> > > > one asks why Harley enthusiasts love their
> > > > “hogs” so much after a motorcycle
> death.
> > > But
> > > > that’s not true. Whenever motorcyclists
> > zoom
> > > > down the highway, helmetless and weaving in
> > and
> > > > out of the traffic, or through my
> > neighborhood,
> > > > apparently reveling in the noise they are
> > > making,
> > > > I wonder why having such powerful machines
> > > between
> > > > their legs is so important to them. Every
> > > object
> > > > has what psychologists call a
> physiognomy—a
> > > way
> > > > of appearing. The choice of the object one
> > > > collects is not accidental; we choose
> objects
> > > > whose physiognomy in some way satisfies
> needs
> > > we
> > > > have. Unlike collecting, say, stamps or
> > coins,
> > > > guns and motorcycles are powerful
> extensions
> > of
> > > > the human body. That men embrace them far
> > more
> > > > than women is not insignificant in this
> > regard.
> > > As
> > > > such extensions, they can play havoc in the
> > > lives
> > > > both of those who collect them and of those
> > > they
> > > > are aimed at. _Of course_ it is appropriate
> > to
> > > > judge persons by their interests; we do
> that
> > > all
> > > > the time in creating our circles of
> > friendship.
> > > So
> > > > I come back round to my original question,
> > for
> > > you
> > > > and all other gun collectors: Why did you
> > > choose
> > > > guns to collect? And why are you so
> > reflexively
> > > > defensive of your hobby, seemingly
> oblivious
> > to
> > > > the ramifications of our gun culture? These
> > are
> > > > question for you to ponder for yourself; I
> > > don’t
> > > > need to know anything about your personal
> > > > dynamics.
> > >
> > > My guns are for protection and not some hobby.
>
> > > You must live a sheltered life and have never
> > ever
> > > had to protect or defend the lives of
> yourself,
> > > your family, or your property. When things
> go
> > > south they go south in a hurry, and the
> police
> > are
> > > not going to be there to protect you. If you
> > > think otherwise you are a fool. I was in St.
> > > Croix when Hugo hit in 1989. It was chaos.
> > > Looting and rapes were rampant. It was worse
> > in
> > > Haiti after the earthquake in 2010. Don’t
> > think
> > > it could happen here? What about Katrina or
> > the
> > > looting that took place in Staten Island and
> > > Rockaway Beach after Sandy. And for all you
> > > people accusing gun owners of wanting to act
> > > tough, grow up. Guns sure as hell don’t
> make
> > > people manlier, but they give you a chance
> when
> > > the wolves are at your door. The wolves
> > don’t
> > > listen to pleas or reasoning, but they
> respect
> > > bullets.
> >
> > "Liberty is for wimps" certainly does seem to
> feel
> > manlier surrounded by his guns: "AMERICA IS FOR
> > GUNS AND REAL MEN!!!!" To me that declaration
> > speaks volumes, making me hope that he has
> neither
> > wife nor children and that he's young enough to
> go
> > back to school to discover dimensions of
> American
> > culture that are truly worth embracing. Once
> they
> > get over their need to separate from their
> mothers
> > and to prove their superiority by bullying
> other
> > males, REAL men open themselves up to their
> full
> > humanity.
> >
> > As for owning guns for protection, I can
> > understand that there are circumstances under
> > which that would be prudent--if I were living
> in
> > some remote part of the country, for example.
> But
> > I personally would not want to live with the
> > fortress mentality you express. I was even
> > reluctant to install an alarm system in my
> house,
> > including a panic button, for fear that it
> would
> > foster that mind set in me. I've made my peace
> > with it by now and only set the alarm when I am
> > out. Social-scientific research demonstrates
> wide
> > variations in how dangerous people feel the
> world
> > is. In that regard, Republicans are far more
> > likely to own guns than Democrats. There are a
> > whole lot of other attitudes that go with gun
> > ownership, though the NRA has done all it can
> to
> > discourage such research.
> >
> > I also remind you that guns in homes are far
> more
> > likely to take the lives of their occupants
> than
> > of any intruder. How many guns, by the way, do
> you
> > consider it necessary to feel protected? In
> spite
> > of his arsenal of guns, some immediately at
> hand,
> > the guy on FPSRussia (Youtube) got taken out by
> a
> > single shot to the head. Any lesson there?
>
>
> When all else fails attack someone's manliness eh?
> Thoughtful, but go F&*K yourself. I have, can,
> and will protect my family. I'm glad you live
> such an insular life, but I won’t feel sorry for
> you when your bubble finally bursts. You are a
> naive sheep that views the world through Disney
> glasses. How much regret will you feel when that
> day comes and you can't protect your family.
> Maybe you can call 911; I hope your family
> survives.


I'm confident, Ben, that you are well armed to protect your family from outsiders. But who will protect your family from you and your attitudes? The likelihood of an attack by an outsider is vanishingly small; you, on the other hand, are likely a constant and irrationally volatile presence.

Libsmart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben F. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Libsmart Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ben F. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Libsmart Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Thanks, Brian, for your long answer,
> which
> > > > bring
> > > > > us a little closer to a reasonable
> > dialogue.
> > > > You
> > > > > ask why I care why gun collectors cherish
> > > their
> > > > > weapons—and weapons they are, no
> denying
> > > > that,
> > > > > even if they are never use to kill
> another
> > > > human
> > > > > being. Let’s not forget that these guns
> > are
> > > > very
> > > > > frequently used to kill other animals,
> > which
> > > > are
> > > > > sentient creatures defenseless against
> > > > > humankind’s weapons. What is sporting
> > about
> > > > > that? Used for hunting, guns create over
> > and
> > > > over
> > > > > again the experience of
> killing—socially
> > > > > sanctioned, of course—and thus they
> > > > contribute
> > > > > to the American culture of violence that
> > > > extends
> > > > > back to the European “discovery” of
> > > America
> > > > > and reaches into the presence in the
> form,
> > > > among
> > > > > other things, of football, the dire
> > physical
> > > > costs
> > > > > of which—-chronic traumatic
> > > > encephalopathy--we
> > > > > are finally coming to appreciate. You
> said
> > > that
> > > > no
> > > > > one asks why Harley enthusiasts love
> their
> > > > > “hogs” so much after a motorcycle
> > death.
> > > > But
> > > > > that’s not true. Whenever motorcyclists
> > > zoom
> > > > > down the highway, helmetless and weaving
> in
> > > and
> > > > > out of the traffic, or through my
> > > neighborhood,
> > > > > apparently reveling in the noise they are
> > > > making,
> > > > > I wonder why having such powerful
> machines
> > > > between
> > > > > their legs is so important to them. Every
> > > > object
> > > > > has what psychologists call a
> > physiognomy—a
> > > > way
> > > > > of appearing. The choice of the object
> one
> > > > > collects is not accidental; we choose
> > objects
> > > > > whose physiognomy in some way satisfies
> > needs
> > > > we
> > > > > have. Unlike collecting, say, stamps or
> > > coins,
> > > > > guns and motorcycles are powerful
> > extensions
> > > of
> > > > > the human body. That men embrace them far
> > > more
> > > > > than women is not insignificant in this
> > > regard.
> > > > As
> > > > > such extensions, they can play havoc in
> the
> > > > lives
> > > > > both of those who collect them and of
> those
> > > > they
> > > > > are aimed at. _Of course_ it is
> appropriate
> > > to
> > > > > judge persons by their interests; we do
> > that
> > > > all
> > > > > the time in creating our circles of
> > > friendship.
> > > > So
> > > > > I come back round to my original
> question,
> > > for
> > > > you
> > > > > and all other gun collectors: Why did you
> > > > choose
> > > > > guns to collect? And why are you so
> > > reflexively
> > > > > defensive of your hobby, seemingly
> > oblivious
> > > to
> > > > > the ramifications of our gun culture?
> These
> > > are
> > > > > question for you to ponder for yourself;
> I
> > > > don’t
> > > > > need to know anything about your personal
> > > > > dynamics.
> > > >
> > > > My guns are for protection and not some
> hobby.
> >
> > > > You must live a sheltered life and have
> never
> > > ever
> > > > had to protect or defend the lives of
> > yourself,
> > > > your family, or your property. When things
> > go
> > > > south they go south in a hurry, and the
> > police
> > > are
> > > > not going to be there to protect you. If
> you
> > > > think otherwise you are a fool. I was in
> St.
> > > > Croix when Hugo hit in 1989. It was chaos.
>
> > > > Looting and rapes were rampant. It was
> worse
> > > in
> > > > Haiti after the earthquake in 2010.
> Don’t
> > > think
> > > > it could happen here? What about Katrina
> or
> > > the
> > > > looting that took place in Staten Island
> and
> > > > Rockaway Beach after Sandy. And for all
> you
> > > > people accusing gun owners of wanting to
> act
> > > > tough, grow up. Guns sure as hell don’t
> > make
> > > > people manlier, but they give you a chance
> > when
> > > > the wolves are at your door. The wolves
> > > don’t
> > > > listen to pleas or reasoning, but they
> > respect
> > > > bullets.
> > >
> > > "Liberty is for wimps" certainly does seem to
> > feel
> > > manlier surrounded by his guns: "AMERICA IS
> FOR
> > > GUNS AND REAL MEN!!!!" To me that declaration
> > > speaks volumes, making me hope that he has
> > neither
> > > wife nor children and that he's young enough
> to
> > go
> > > back to school to discover dimensions of
> > American
> > > culture that are truly worth embracing. Once
> > they
> > > get over their need to separate from their
> > mothers
> > > and to prove their superiority by bullying
> > other
> > > males, REAL men open themselves up to their
> > full
> > > humanity.
> > >
> > > As for owning guns for protection, I can
> > > understand that there are circumstances under
> > > which that would be prudent--if I were living
> > in
> > > some remote part of the country, for example.
> > But
> > > I personally would not want to live with the
> > > fortress mentality you express. I was even
> > > reluctant to install an alarm system in my
> > house,
> > > including a panic button, for fear that it
> > would
> > > foster that mind set in me. I've made my
> peace
> > > with it by now and only set the alarm when I
> am
> > > out. Social-scientific research demonstrates
> > wide
> > > variations in how dangerous people feel the
> > world
> > > is. In that regard, Republicans are far more
> > > likely to own guns than Democrats. There are
> a
> > > whole lot of other attitudes that go with gun
> > > ownership, though the NRA has done all it can
> > to
> > > discourage such research.
> > >
> > > I also remind you that guns in homes are far
> > more
> > > likely to take the lives of their occupants
> > than
> > > of any intruder. How many guns, by the way,
> do
> > you
> > > consider it necessary to feel protected? In
> > spite
> > > of his arsenal of guns, some immediately at
> > hand,
> > > the guy on FPSRussia (Youtube) got taken out
> by
> > a
> > > single shot to the head. Any lesson there?
> >
> >
> > When all else fails attack someone's manliness
> eh?
> > Thoughtful, but go F&*K yourself. I have,
> can,
> > and will protect my family. I'm glad you live
> > such an insular life, but I won’t feel sorry
> for
> > you when your bubble finally bursts. You are a
> > naive sheep that views the world through Disney
> > glasses. How much regret will you feel when
> that
> > day comes and you can't protect your family.
> > Maybe you can call 911; I hope your family
> > survives.
>
>
> I'm confident, Ben, that you are well armed to
> protect your family from outsiders. But who will
> protect your family from you and your attitudes?
> The likelihood of an attack by an outsider is
> vanishingly small; you, on the other hand, are
> likely a constant and irrationally volatile
> presence.


Who will protect your family from your attidudes? Look in the mirror as maybe you are the irrational presense. There are MILLIONS of responsible gun owners in this country yet you want to group law abiding folks in with the maniacal behavior of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. You and your liberal pals think you are oh so smart and superior that you know whats best for the rest of us. Your the dangerous ones.

Ben F. Wrote:

>
> Who will protect your family from your attidudes?
> Look in the mirror as maybe you are the irrational
> presense. There are MILLIONS of responsible gun
> owners in this country yet you want to group law
> abiding folks in with the maniacal behavior of
> criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. You
> and your liberal pals think you are oh so smart
> and superior that you know whats best for the rest
> of us. Your the dangerous ones.



it's this bullshit that we are kinda sick and tired off...............the whole "let's just sweep gun crime under the table, it's no big deal" attitude you gun nuts want to sell us.

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben F. Wrote:
>
> >
> > Who will protect your family from your
> attidudes?
> > Look in the mirror as maybe you are the
> irrational
> > presense. There are MILLIONS of responsible
> gun
> > owners in this country yet you want to group
> law
> > abiding folks in with the maniacal behavior of
> > criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.
> You
> > and your liberal pals think you are oh so smart
> > and superior that you know whats best for the
> rest
> > of us. Your the dangerous ones.
>
>
>
> it's this bullshit that we are kinda sick and
> tired off...............the whole "let's just
> sweep gun crime under the table, it's no big deal"
> attitude you gun nuts want to sell us.
>


So your sick of logic and common sense?

If it makes you feel better your posts have shown your disdain for critical thinking already

speaking of critical thinking.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/gun-reform-for-a-generation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

pic unrelated
Attachments:

@gordon - LoLz... wifey.. luvin the unrelated.. i love yr.... LoLz...

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> speaking of critical thinking.......
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/gun-refo
> rm-for-a-generation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>
> pic unrelated

LoLz... I keep my gurl safe 24/7, wifey always have 2 guns protecting her. L arm and R arm.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> speaking of critical thinking.......


Ive yet to see you demonstrate that you even understand what that means much less practice it yourself


For the 4 millionth time youre free to actually discuss FACTS, but instead you just repeat the same lies and post stupid pictures nonstop

Rough Night. Bought a new Bushmaster, took it to bed and I could not get hard. This new gun does not do it for me and I could not get off. Had to watch chicks with dicks for my release.

Liberal Logic 104 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rough Night. Bought a new Bushmaster, took it to
> bed and I could not get hard. This new gun does
> not do it for me and I could not get off. Had to
> watch chicks with dicks for my release.


Great example of critical thinking. I'm glad you would like to discuss facts. When you don't have an arguement; attack.

Liberal Logic 104 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rough Night. Bought a new Bushmaster, took it to
> bed and I could not get hard. This new gun does
> not do it for me and I could not get off. Had to
> watch chicks with dicks for my release.


Very impressive intellect you've got there
.
Attachments:

as opposed to to that everyday NRA "intellect" LoLz

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Yay, another engrossing cartoon from the boy-genius Gordon


.
Attachments:

They make a underarm deodorant for low testosterone,Gentlemen. Instead of guns you might become interested in the fairer sex once again.
More family members are murdered by home defense weapons than actual home break ins. The only two arguments for gun ownwership have been home defense and the second amendment.

Wekjy- please, leave my gf alone. My sweet Gordon

Childrens Games Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They make a underarm deodorant for low
> testosterone,Gentlemen. Instead of guns you might
> become interested in the fairer sex once again.
> More family members are murdered by home defense
> weapons than actual home break ins. The only two
> arguments for gun ownwership have been home
> defense and the second amendment.

True. That's beauty of gun ownership. Gun owners most often off themselves and their families. Helps to thin the world of these nut cases.

A gun is 70% more likely to used by a family member to:

a) Commit suicide.
b) Kill other family members.
c) Kill a close acquaintance in an arguement.

A Pennyslvania man accidentally shot and killed his 7-year-old son in a gun store parking lot yesterday, when his pistol went off in his hand, police tell the AP. The boy, Craig Loughrey, was strapping himself into his safety seat when his father Joseph, 44, set down a 9mm on the dashboard. The gun went off, hitting Craig. Loughrey says he had removed the gun's magazine earlier, and hadn't realized a bullet was still in the chamber. "This happens all too often," one police officer said.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Does anyone actually picket NRA's HQ or is this just a bunch of loud mouths? I haven't seen any news stories about it. The protest outside the gun show in December was lame with a bunch of ugly old women and homosexual men. Perhaps if you got good looking chicks in bikinis, or better yet, topless or naked like the PETA protestors, you'd get a better turn out. I'll show up for some nice looking women without tops. Please post pictures in advance of these women so I can determine if it's worth it.

Thanks

Atlanta • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/shooting-atlanta-police-says.html.csp

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Evil asault rifle saves two students.

Rochester, N.Y. — Early Tuesday morning, Christopher Boise heard a noise coming from the basement. As he walked toward the source of that noise, the RIT student noticed two men standing in the downstairs portion of his apartment.

"They were waiting for me at the bottom of the stairs," said Boise.

One of them had a handgun trained on Boise.

More:

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx?rss=102

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Gas station clerk ends robber's life:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183760/two-robbers-shot-dead-in-hollywood.html

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Car thief's criminal career ended (4ever)

http://www.kens5.com/news/SAPD-Car-thief-killed-another-wounded-outside-Stone-Oak-home-186923501.html

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Sheep thanks sheepdogs:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Robbery-victim-wants-to-thank-Good-Samaritans-who-came-to-his-rescue--186572461.html

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

You liberals go ahead and have your rally if it makes you feel better. Just keep in mind that as a matter of unargueable fact that the more gun control laws there are, the more murders there are. Chicago- case and point. Latest murder, a 15yr. old girl that was involved in president Oblama's inauguration.

And no I'm not wrong with my previous point that liberals always change the subject. The mere fact that you libs want to curtail US citizen's access to firearms is a change in the subject all by itself.We have a constitutional right to bear arms and that's that.

We conservatives have been far too tolerant of you liberals for far too long! If you push things too far you destroy a good thing called the USA. In fact, liberalism has done so much damage already this country may already be communist. You liberals are completely insane. The murder rate went up with the first 20 gun control laws so lets pass anther 20 gun control laws.

The hypocracy is also off the charts. Look at how well you liberals control guns. How did fast 'n furious work out for the American people

Arrogance is another liberal trait. Oblama and Derelick Holder won't discuss those 1400 assault rifles claiming ignorance.

We all know (conservatives) that Oblama knows exactly what happened and that he has put a gag order on Derelick holder. And for that matter he knows exactly why ambassador Stevens was sodomized and shot to death. What little security the ambassador had was overwhelmingly outgunned.

Just think how many lives that armed officer saved yesterday at the Atlanta middle school.

College Kid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone actually picket NRA's HQ or is this
> just a bunch of loud mouths? I haven't seen any
> news stories about it. The protest outside the
> gun show in December was lame with a bunch of ugly
> old women and homosexual men. Perhaps if you got
> good looking chicks in bikinis, or better yet,
> topless or naked like the PETA protestors, you'd
> get a better turn out. I'll show up for some nice
> looking women without tops. Please post pictures
> in advance of these women so I can determine if
> it's worth it.
>
> Thanks


No. They could only get a couple thousand people out for their "million" person march.

dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You liberals go ahead and have your rally if it
> makes you feel better. Just keep in mind that as a
> matter of unargueable fact that the more gun
> control laws there are, the more murders there
> are. Chicago- case and point. Latest murder, a
> 15yr. old girl that was involved in president
> Oblama's inauguration.
>
> And no I'm not wrong with my previous point that
> liberals always change the subject. The mere fact
> that you libs want to curtail US citizen's access
> to firearms is a change in the subject all by
> itself.We have a constitutional right to bear arms
> and that's that.
>
> We conservatives have been far too tolerant of you
> liberals for far too long! If you push things too
> far you destroy a good thing called the USA. In
> fact, liberalism has done so much damage already
> this country may already be communist. You
> liberals are completely insane. The murder rate
> went up with the first 20 gun control laws so lets
> pass anther 20 gun control laws.
>
> The hypocracy is also off the charts. Look at how
> well you liberals control guns. How did fast 'n
> furious work out for the American people
>
> Arrogance is another liberal trait. Oblama and
> Derelick Holder won't discuss those 1400 assault
> rifles claiming ignorance.
>
> We all know (conservatives) that Oblama knows
> exactly what happened and that he has put a gag
> order on Derelick holder. And for that matter he
> knows exactly why ambassador Stevens was sodomized
> and shot to death. What little security the
> ambassador had was overwhelmingly outgunned.
>
> Just think how many lives that armed officer saved
> yesterday at the

Who fucking cares about one ambassador and three security guards. Everything dies. Wrong place at the wrong time. With your explanation everyone from the age two should be armed. Kids get out of hand, shoot them. Employee are boss pisses you off, shoot them. Wife does something wrong, you know, waste the bitch. Cool concept. Kill them all and let god sort it out.


Let my gun ruin your day. God Bless America.

Arm America!! Wrote:
>
> Who fucking cares about one ambassador and three
> security guards. Everything dies. Wrong place at
> the wrong time. With your explanation everyone
> from the age two should be armed. Kids get out of
> hand, shoot them. Employee are boss pisses you
> off, shoot them. Wife does something wrong, you
> know, waste the bitch. Cool concept. Kill them all
> and let god sort it out.
>
>
> Let my gun ruin your day. God Bless America.


Do rocks die? You seem irrationally angry. I prescribe that you refrain from posting until your obvious retardness is under control.

I dont need guns LoLz... i am always watching for the bad guys... even in my sleep... LoLz...

pic unrelated

This is a good idea...I am fed up too, but there are too many weirdos on this site to take a good idea seriously. I would be worried that they would show up where the protest is and try to shoot someone...total wingnuts. Seriously, there are some that are real sickos.

There are a few on this site that don't have anything better to do with their time, than think of lame ass, sexist, gross responses. So much for a good idea.

Good idea...but... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a good idea...I am fed up too, but there
> are too many weirdos on this site to take a good
> idea seriously. I would be worried that they would
> show up where the protest is and try to shoot
> someone...total wingnuts. Seriously, there are
> some that are real sickos.
>
> There are a few on this site that don't have
> anything better to do with their time, than think
> of lame ass, sexist, gross responses. So much for
> a good idea.


.
Attachments:

notice they simply namecall like 2 yr olds instead of stay on topic, right?

meanwhile, more intelligent ppl are noticing stuff like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-because-they-cant-find-real-ones/

but that's ok - let's let the hillbillies continue to let us misinterpret the 2nd admendment (you know, the one that NEVER mentions firearms or guns)

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> post unrelated

Gordon blvd- what do ya think? Are we supposed to wear tanktops to practice our right to bear arms?

O.K. gun lovers you've misinterpreted the constitution. The government will have a day of trading in guns for tanktops.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> notice they simply namecall like 2 yr olds instead
> of stay on topic, right?
>
> meanwhile, more intelligent ppl are noticing stuff
> like this:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/
> 2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-becaus
> e-they-cant-find-real-ones/
>
> but that's ok - let's let the hillbillies continue
> to let us misinterpret the 2nd admendment (you
> know, the one that NEVER mentions firearms or
> guns)
>
> pic unrelated


Gotta give to Gordon. He fills his job as the FFU sleeping pill well indeed

.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> notice they simply namecall like 2 yr olds instead
> of stay on topic, right?

You must be describing your own postings here. Now cue the name calling the typing like a preteen girl and some stupid picture with nothing to do with anything "lolz".

> meanwhile, more intelligent ppl are noticing stuff
> like this:

If being intelligent means the inability to think like you stupid is a compliment.

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/
> 2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-becaus
> e-they-cant-find-real-ones/


Funny how the article didnt mention Britians crime and violent crime rates dwarf ours.

But your too stupid to think anyway so another picture time yay.

> but that's ok - let's let the hillbillies continue
> to let us misinterpret the 2nd admendment (you
> know, the one that NEVER mentions firearms or
> guns)

Congrats. I want to start a slow clap right now. You have reached a new level of stupid. Really the 2nd amendment never mentions firearms or guns. Well its a dam good thing youve pointed this out, for over 200 years everyone including some of the greatest minds in history have had it wrong.

Seriously if you are that stupid just shut the fuck up. Theres no other way to put it but if you arent trolling and seriously think the 2nd amendment doesnt relate to guns, my god

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > notice they simply namecall like 2 yr olds
> instead
> > of stay on topic, right?
>
> You must be describing your own postings here.
> Now cue the name calling the typing like a preteen
> girl and some stupid picture with nothing to do
> with anything "lolz".
>
> > meanwhile, more intelligent ppl are noticing
> stuff
> > like this:
>
> If being intelligent means the inability to think
> like you stupid is a compliment.
>
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/
>
> >
> 2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-becaus
>
> > e-they-cant-find-real-ones/
>
>
> Funny how the article didnt mention Britians crime
> and violent crime rates dwarf ours.
>
> But your too stupid to think anyway so another
> picture time yay.
>
> > but that's ok - let's let the hillbillies
> continue
> > to let us misinterpret the 2nd admendment (you
> > know, the one that NEVER mentions firearms or
> > guns)
>
> Congrats. I want to start a slow clap right now.
> You have reached a new level of stupid. Really
> the 2nd amendment never mentions firearms or guns.
> Well its a dam good thing youve pointed this out,
> for over 200 years everyone including some of the
> greatest minds in history have had it wrong.
>
> Seriously if you are that stupid just shut the
> fuck up. Theres no other way to put it but if you
> arent trolling and seriously think the 2nd
> amendment doesnt relate to guns, my god



The whole Constitution and your only focus is on the second. Narrow minded and boring. You are a complete loser in life. Weapons will never be confiscated. But with the mental illness you let ruin your life, yours should be taken from you.

Liberal logic #1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The whole Constitution and your only focus is on
> the second. Narrow minded and boring. You are a
> complete loser in life. Weapons will never be
> confiscated. But with the mental illness you let
> ruin your life, yours should be taken from you.


So please tell me what should the focus be in a gun debate then?

But I see we have another intelligent internet keyboard warrior here.

By the way the answer to my question is the 2nd amendment since thats the one that deals with guns (thought Id save you the google searching to see what its about)

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> pic unrelated


... a kitten dies.


"

Are you still talking about picketting and guns?

no one really cares anymore...move on!!!!!!!!!!

dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And no I'm not wrong with my previous point that
> liberals always change the subject. The mere fact
> that you libs want to curtail US citizen's access
> to firearms is a change in the subject all by
> itself.We have a constitutional right to bear arms
> and that's that.

I completely agree that there is a Constitutional right to bear arms... HOWEVER, the states can place reasonable restrictions upon it. Every item in the Bill of Rights can be reasonably restricted. It's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. It's also illegal to own or purchase a machine gun manufactured after May of 1986. You can reasonably restrict rights, but you can't eliminate them.


> We conservatives have been far too tolerant of you
> liberals for far too long! If you push things too
> far you destroy a good thing called the USA. In
> fact, liberalism has done so much damage already
> this country may already be communist. You
> liberals are completely insane. The murder rate
> went up with the first 20 gun control laws so lets
> pass anther 20 gun control laws.

This is complete nonsense for anybody who knows how the country's politics really work. This country is center-right. It always has been center-right. The Democrats and the Republicans are both pretty conservative, if you look at it on a global scale. We are one of the more conservative countries in the world, actually. We are not in danger of becoming communist. Historically speaking, communism was never truly popular in this country.


> The hypocracy is also off the charts. Look at how
> well you liberals control guns. How did fast 'n
> furious work out for the American people
Fast and Furious started under George W. Bush. It was a terrible idea, and Obama shouldn't have allowed it to continue. However, we need to discuss facts, not opinions.

> Arrogance is another liberal trait. Oblama and
> Derelick Holder won't discuss those 1400 assault
> rifles claiming ignorance.
Of course they won't. It's not politically convenient.

> We all know (conservatives) that Oblama knows
> exactly what happened and that he has put a gag
> order on Derelick holder. And for that matter he
> knows exactly why ambassador Stevens was sodomized
> and shot to death. What little security the
> ambassador had was overwhelmingly outgunned.

Even if the security had access to M4s and M16s, Stevens would have died. Stevens died from smoke inhalation, by the way.

Obama and his cronies are attacking the wrong thing. "Assault weapons" are not a threat. The term "assault weapon" is fictitious. If you want to address the problem, you have to deal with the mental health system and with handguns.

Fast and Furious was a complete Obama admin operation. The Bush administration had a gunwalking operation called Operaton Wide Receiver. Both were run out of AFT/DOJ. Holder was briefed on both it appears. Fast and Furious seems to have involved more sellers and buyers and more weapons, which most were quickly lost track of within days of purchase. Both operations were complete busts.

It's hard to know where to begin correcting you "young curmudgeon" since you are wrong about almost everything you said;however there is hope for you because I detected a tinge of independent thinking in your post.

If Stevens died of smoke inhalation then he was sodomized posthumously right?

Why was he also shot posthumously?

There should have been enough security to prevent terrorists from getting close enough to set fire to the building he was in. So yes his security was outgunned.

There are already reasonable and unreasonable restrictions in place. In fact the more restrictions that are enacted, the higher the murder rates.

Most of society is going batshit crazy because of liberal intrusion into their daily lives. The more liberalism the more subdued the citizens are. Hence more and more people are snapping.

Gun violence is just getting started. You haven't seen anything yet!

Personally I've accepted that we've lost our great nation to Oblamaism. I don't own a firearm because I just never got into that sort of thing.

I've hired an ex-military marksman to protect me and my mother when the shit hits the fan. He's very heavily armed with plenty of guns and ammo. He's also giving me firearms training because I could shoot someone to protect my mother in a heartbeat.

I would never have known there is so much to learn beginning with safety if our country was still able to live by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nothing is sacred to the current administration. And no I don't give Bush a thumbs up either. Actually Oblama is Bush on steroids. They are thick as theives when it comes to the one World Government policy of the United Nations.

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

I saw you guys out there today for like 30 mins. Did the cop tell you guys to leave?

I have to admit, it looked pretty weak. 12 people max....

Waples Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw you guys out there today for like 30 mins.
> Did the cop tell you guys to leave?
>
> I have to admit, it looked pretty weak. 12 people
> max....


FINALLY!! A live report!!

Twelve? Hardly. More people walk across the parking lots in the office plazas behind the building @ lunchtime. If that was "massive" then the average crowd at the Dulles gun show is an overwhelming mass of humanity.

dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to know where to begin correcting you
> "young curmudgeon" since you are wrong about
> almost everything you said;however there is hope
> for you because I detected a tinge of independent
> thinking in your post.
>
> If Stevens died of smoke inhalation then he was
> sodomized posthumously right?
>
> Why was he also shot posthumously?
>
> There should have been enough security to prevent
> terrorists from getting close enough to set fire
> to the building he was in. So yes his security was
> outgunned.
>
> There are already reasonable and unreasonable
> restrictions in place. In fact the more
> restrictions that are enacted, the higher the
> murder rates.
>
> Most of society is going batshit crazy because of
> liberal intrusion into their daily lives. The more
> liberalism the more subdued the citizens are.
> Hence more and more people are snapping.
>
> Gun violence is just getting started. You haven't
> seen anything yet!
>
> Personally I've accepted that we've lost our great
> nation to Oblamaism. I don't own a firearm because
> I just never got into that sort of thing.
>
> I've hired an ex-military marksman to protect me
> and my mother when the shit hits the fan. He's
> very heavily armed with plenty of guns and ammo.
> He's also giving me firearms training because I
> could shoot someone to protect my mother in a
> heartbeat.
>
> I would never have known there is so much to learn
> beginning with safety if our country was still
> able to live by the Constitution and Bill of
> Rights. Nothing is sacred to the current
> administration. And no I don't give Bush a thumbs
> up either. Actually Oblama is Bush on steroids.
> They are thick as theives when it comes to the one
> World Government policy of the United Nations.
>
> The answer to 1984 is 1776.


Let's see evidence of anything you said. Everything I said is independent thinking; I don't need others to think for me.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2012/09/18/damon-libya-banghazi-witness.cnn

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2013 11:14PM by Young Curmudgeon.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I completely agree that there is a Constitutional
> right to bear arms... HOWEVER, the states can
> place reasonable restrictions upon it. Every item
> in the Bill of Rights can be reasonably
> restricted. It's illegal to shout fire in a
> crowded theater. It's also illegal to own or
> purchase a machine gun manufactured after May of
> 1986. You can reasonably restrict rights, but you
> can't eliminate them.

Theyve already been reasonable restricted to the point that should be allowed. One of the tests though for whether or not the government can restrict or infringe a right is whether or not they can show a compelling government interest. In the case of yelling fire its to prevent panic.

For guns however theyve yet to prove that what they want to do will have any impact on crime whatsoever. In fact looking where guns are banned we see the opposite. England is the place the left loves to say is what we should be like yet ignores that their violent crime is far greater than ours.

If they want to ban a type of weapon then the should have to prove that it will do what they say before the idea is even on the table, the problem is that they just want to restrict it because they dont like it.


> This is complete nonsense for anybody who knows
> how the country's politics really work. This
> country is center-right. It always has been
> center-right. The Democrats and the Republicans
> are both pretty conservative, if you look at it on
> a global scale. We are one of the more
> conservative countries in the world, actually.

This was true until recently. In the 1990s either way you got close to the same thing but the Dems were a moderate party. Theyve taken a hard turn left at the very least with their leadership while guys like Liberman get run out of the party for being to moderate.

You can argue its just a small vocal base responsible for the perception, but unfortunately those are the people currently in their leadership roles who believe compromise means agreeing with them

> Even if the security had access to M4s and M16s,
> Stevens would have died. Stevens died from smoke
> inhalation, by the way.

Maybe maybe not, well never know since they didnt but they would have at least had a fighting chance. We really dont know anything about what happened aside from the fact that a coverup was definitely attempted. Interesting no ones heard from the survivors.

> Obama and his cronies are attacking the wrong
> thing. "Assault weapons" are not a threat. The
> term "assault weapon" is fictitious. If you want
> to address the problem, you have to deal with the
> mental health system and with handguns.

EXACTLY. A weapon is only as dangerous as the hands that its in. Which brings me back to my other point that they are just using everything as a smoke screen to get rid of something they dont like.

People keep vandalizing and spitting on my Dodge ram because of my little window sticker. I hope I catch one of those pricks red handed.
Attachments:

gun nut2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People keep vandalizing and spitting on my Dodge
> ram because of my little window sticker. I hope I
> catch one of those pricks red handed.

Gee, what a cool sticker. What did you pay for it? I would never belong to a organization, society or club that would have me as a member. Does this organization make you feel like a man? I always believed a man stands on his own.


Not a sermon but just a thought.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theyve already been reasonable restricted to the
> point that should be allowed. One of the tests
> though for whether or not the government can
> restrict or infringe a right is whether or not
> they can show a compelling government interest.
> In the case of yelling fire its to prevent panic.
> For guns however theyve yet to prove that what
> they want to do will have any impact on crime
> whatsoever. In fact looking where guns are banned
> we see the opposite. England is the place the
> left loves to say is what we should be like yet
> ignores that their violent crime is far greater
> than ours.

First, it was so funny watching Piers Morgan getting his argument ripped apart. Not by one guy, but by at least two. The issue of violent crime is not tied to gun issues. The mental health system is broken. Let's address that before we address guns.


> If they want to ban a type of weapon then the
> should have to prove that it will do what they say
> before the idea is even on the table, the problem
> is that they just want to restrict it because they
> dont like it.

That's why Feinstein is trying to ban the AR-15. She doesn't like it. Obama doesn't like it.

> This was true until recently. In the 1990s either
> way you got close to the same thing but the Dems
> were a moderate party. Theyve taken a hard turn
> left at the very least with their leadership while
> guys like Liberman get run out of the party for
> being to moderate.

I identify more as a Conservative Democrat than as a Republican. I think Obama is leading the party in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, however, the GOP seems to be splintered and disorganized.

> You can argue its just a small vocal base
> responsible for the perception, but unfortunately
> those are the people currently in their leadership
> roles who believe compromise means agreeing with
> them.

Harry Reid really isn't as left wing as people think. Pelosi can afford to be left wing; she's from San Francisco. Obama started out as more of a moderate but is now becoming increasingly liberal. The Democrats are screaming and yelling about the Republicans not wanting to compromise. In his first term, Obama never invited the Republican leadership to the White House until the end of the term, during the fiscal cliff.

The Democratic leadership is honestly awful, with the possible exception of Harry Reid; he's not magnificent either.

> Maybe maybe not, well never know since they didnt
> but they would have at least had a fighting
> chance. We really dont know anything about what
> happened aside from the fact that a coverup was
> definitely attempted. Interesting no ones heard
> from the survivors.

The group might have had a fighting chance, but it depends on how many attackers there were. Susan Rice attempted to give the public a convenient answer. The answer isn't as simple as "it's a coverup." It's far more complex. However, I agree that additional firepower could only have helped the security detail.

> EXACTLY. A weapon is only as dangerous as the
> hands that its in. Which brings me back to my
> other point that they are just using everything as
> a smoke screen to get rid of something they dont
> like.

Guns don't kill people. People USING the guns kill people. It's just basic logic. Guns don't have the ability to fire by themselves. If we deal with the mental health issue and improve the background check system, gun control won't be as necessary.

LMFAO

Stupid hick

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, it was so funny watching Piers Morgan
> getting his argument ripped apart. Not by one guy,
> but by at least two. The issue of violent crime is
> not tied to gun issues. The mental health system
> is broken. Let's address that before we address
> guns.

I feel like hes where a lot of people on here get their arguments. As soon as facts get presented just call people stupid and refer to a single incident over and over and over again like that is representative of what 300 million people do. Pierce really has had his ass handed to him by pretty much everyone hes tried to have a "debate" with, and I use the term debate liberally when it comes to Pierce. I dont think even England wants him back at this point.

I guess in the age of being tolerant of everything and having very little standards for behavior its far easier to blame the weapons than look for real solutions. The NRA head hasnt been the most elegant in how hes stated things, but hes right about the fact that these are a result of bigger issues that have nothing to do with the type of weapon.


> That's why Feinstein is trying to ban the AR-15.
> She doesn't like it. Obama doesn't like it.

Exactly and thats what makes this even worse. Theyre basically just saying we respect the rights that we agree with. Holder told congress last year that he and the president want assault weapons banned long before any of these shootings.

> I identify more as a Conservative Democrat than as
> a Republican. I think Obama is leading the party
> in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, however,
> the GOP seems to be splintered and disorganized.

Their is some splintering in the GOP, however they at least have reasonable leadership. The media loves to concentrate on a handful of individuals though that arent representative of the party as a whole. I agree with you though that the Dems are being lead down the wrong path and need to get the party back on track.


> Harry Reid really isn't as left wing as people
> think. Pelosi can afford to be left wing; she's
> from San Francisco. Obama started out as more of a
> moderate but is now becoming increasingly liberal.
> The Democrats are screaming and yelling about the
> Republicans not wanting to compromise. In his
> first term, Obama never invited the Republican
> leadership to the White House until the end of the
> term, during the fiscal cliff.

I cant really give Reid any credit personally with how hes basically brought the Senate to a stall for the last 4 years. I mean he wont even bring things up for vote and they havent passed a budget in who knows how long. Someone should sue them for fraud for continuing to take pay checks at this point. Pelosi is kind of a league of her own, the sooner they can get her out of the spot light the better off the country will be.

Personally I think that Obama was this liberal all along and just played the game very well to appear moderate and get the 2nd term where he can do what he wants and not worry about elections. But you brought up a great point, the GOP did try and work with him in his first term but he didnt have to at first and it was obvious he couldnt careless about anything they had to say. The blame for not working together falls on him and their leaders.

> The Democratic leadership is honestly awful, with
> the possible exception of Harry Reid; he's not
> magnificent either.

I agree. The only good thing about Reid is that hes not as anti gun as the rest. Actually he may or may not like them but being from Nevada if he ever wants to win again he has to be pro gun so he at least has that going for him.


> The group might have had a fighting chance, but it
> depends on how many attackers there were. Susan
> Rice attempted to give the public a convenient
> answer. The answer isn't as simple as "it's a
> coverup." It's far more complex. However, I agree
> that additional firepower could only have helped
> the security detail.

I personally found trying to blame a youtube video that came out 3 months earlier disgusting. Even if that were what caused it it doesnt change what happened nor is it an excuse for their actions.

Its like were seeing with the shootings now, deflection of blame. Its not the shooters fault its the guns, its not the terrorists fault its the videos. Anyone who told Rice to say that should be fired immediately.


> Guns don't kill people. People USING the guns kill
> people. It's just basic logic. Guns don't have the
> ability to fire by themselves. If we deal with the
> mental health issue and improve the background
> check system, gun control won't be as necessary.

This, but thats to complex and doesnt make for good political commercials. Really if they want a huge impact on gun violence then you need to clean up the gang problems as they are overwhelmingly responsible for gun violence.

Unfortunately basic logic and common sense seem to be two things were lacking in society currently.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I feel like hes where a lot of people on here get
> their arguments. As soon as facts get presented
> just call people stupid and refer to a single
> incident over and over and over again like that is
> representative of what 300 million people do.
> Pierce really has had his ass handed to him by
> pretty much everyone hes tried to have a "debate"
> with, and I use the term debate liberally when it
> comes to Pierce. I dont think even England wants
> him back at this point.

Piers Morgan has his head so far up his ass that it's protruding from his neck. He keeps bringing up how we have a higher murder rate than any other "industrialized" country. Well, the reasoning for that is twofold. We ARE the world's largest industrial country. China is slowly getting to our level, but it has dealt with a number of set backs. Also, China is A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP. Communist dictatorships tend to dislike it when people have the means to fight back.

> I guess in the age of being tolerant of everything
> and having very little standards for behavior its
> far easier to blame the weapons than look for real
> solutions. The NRA head hasnt been the most
> elegant in how hes stated things, but hes right
> about the fact that these are a result of bigger
> issues that have nothing to do with the type of
> weapon.

That's why I'm so vigorously against the Obama knee-jerk reaction. I think we have an issue with guns in this country, but the best way to deal with them is to deal with the underlying issues. Taking away "assault weapons" isn't an actual solution! It's one of those "feel-good but do nothing" solutions that Obama seems to enjoy so much.

> Exactly and thats what makes this even worse.
> Theyre basically just saying we respect the rights
> that we agree with. Holder told congress last
> year that he and the president want assault
> weapons banned long before any of these shootings.

Liberals LOVE the First Amendment. God forbid anyone tries to trample on it. You can throw Jesus in a jar of piss, and it's okay with them. But as soon as you want to protect the Second Amendment or attempt to keep some powers for the states, it's "This is why you're wrong and I'm right." It's absolute nonsense.

> Their is some splintering in the GOP, however they
> at least have reasonable leadership. The media
> loves to concentrate on a handful of individuals
> though that arent representative of the party as a
> whole. I agree with you though that the Dems are
> being lead down the wrong path and need to get the
> party back on track.

The splinter groups (i.e. the Tea Party) have realized they're just as unelectable as the far left elements of the Democratic Party. As a result, the GOP has become more centrist recently, but it's tough to be a proponent of some austerity when we live in a quasi-welfare state. As Margaret Thatcher so eloquently put it, welfare states are great until you run out of other people's money.


> I cant really give Reid any credit personally with
> how hes basically brought the Senate to a stall
> for the last 4 years. I mean he wont even bring
> things up for vote and they havent passed a budget
> in who knows how long. Someone should sue them
> for fraud for continuing to take pay checks at
> this point. Pelosi is kind of a league of her
> own, the sooner they can get her out of the spot
> light the better off the country will be.

As I said, neither is great. Reid is better than some. Honestly, I wish Tom Daschle was still in the Senate; he'd kick a lot of these guys in the ass and insist that the Senate does something.

> Personally I think that Obama was this liberal all
> along and just played the game very well to appear
> moderate and get the 2nd term where he can do what
> he wants and not worry about elections. But you
> brought up a great point, the GOP did try and work
> with him in his first term but he didnt have to at
> first and it was obvious he couldnt careless about
> anything they had to say. The blame for not
> working together falls on him and their leaders.

And of course, the American public doesn't see it like that. Obama's issue is that he's a weak personality. Rather than elect someone with some balls, the American public chose the smiley black man. It helped that John McCain was an awful candidate. He walked in with no experience, and he was stuck in a situation where he knew nobody and had no clue as to what to do.


> I agree. The only good thing about Reid is that
> hes not as anti gun as the rest. Actually he may
> or may not like them but being from Nevada if he
> ever wants to win again he has to be pro gun so he
> at least has that going for him.

Reid is better than most. Joe Lieberman was kicked out of the party, and Al Gore seems to be done with politics. There aren't that many visible moderates left in the Democratic Party. Max Baucus is too old to run; he doesn't want to. The rest of the moderates are too afraid of the party leadership.


> I personally found trying to blame a youtube video
> that came out 3 months earlier disgusting. Even
> if that were what caused it it doesnt change what
> happened nor is it an excuse for their actions.
>
> Its like were seeing with the shootings now,
> deflection of blame. Its not the shooters fault
> its the guns, its not the terrorists fault its the
> videos. Anyone who told Rice to say that should
> be fired immediately.

Remember, Obama's administration is never in the wrong. It's never his fault, it's always someone else's. Rice more or less apologized for our free speech. Obama is backing what appears to be an Islamic dictatorship in the making. He seems to have installed another one in Libya. Of course, when all of these countries turn Islamist, it won't be Obama's fault, it'll be someone else's.

> This, but thats to complex and doesnt make for
> good political commercials. Really if they want a
> huge impact on gun violence then you need to clean
> up the gang problems as they are overwhelmingly
> responsible for gun violence.

There's a statistic from the CDC or the FBI. It says that black males are responsible for roughly 60% of all gun related violence. We focus too much on things like Newtown. I'm not saying that it wasn't terrible. However, twice or three times the number killed in Newtown are killed in inner cities every night. Where's the CNN coverage? Where's the outrage? The answer is: it doesn't make for good TV or good analysis. It's not until something occurs in a white, suburban area. Then everyone is up in arms.

Is it deliberate racism? In my opinion, no. But it's racism inherent in our society.

> Unfortunately basic logic and common sense seem to
> be two things were lacking in society currently.

This. I completely agree.

this is all very fascinating....................but since you guys are so really pressed about race, then let's get REAL about race and gun violence - end this bullshit about who really is dying at the end of a bullet

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2013 07:32PM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Piers Morgan has his head so far up his ass that
> it's protruding from his neck. He keeps bringing
> up how we have a higher murder rate than any other
> "industrialized" country. Well, the reasoning for
> that is twofold. We ARE the world's largest
> industrial country. China is slowly getting to our
> level, but it has dealt with a number of set
> backs. Also, China is A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP.
> Communist dictatorships tend to dislike it when
> people have the means to fight back.

He also only picks that stat because a lot of other crimes rates are much higher in societies without guns since criminals have nothing to fear but the police.

I can respect people that at least make well thought out responses, Morgan does not fall into that category. Hes an ideological hack, he cant ever tell you why he believes what he does only that he does. As soon as facts are presented he just has to grandstand on emotional arguments since its all he knows.

> That's why I'm so vigorously against the Obama
> knee-jerk reaction. I think we have an issue with
> guns in this country, but the best way to deal
> with them is to deal with the underlying issues.
> Taking away "assault weapons" isn't an actual
> solution! It's one of those "feel-good but do
> nothing" solutions that Obama seems to enjoy so
> much.

Im not even sure I would say we have issues with guns in this country, just that we have issues and some people tend to lash out with guns. If you want the school shootings to stop have the media stop covering them. All theyve done is become a way for twisted or mentally ill individuals to leave their mark on society on the way out. If they didnt get the fame it would seem like a lot less viable way. Its like why some people throw themselves in front of the metro instead of swallowing a bottle of pills, they want attention on the way out.

But I couldnt agree more that its nothing but feel good we dont like them crap. Part of me cant help but wonder if fast and furious was going to be used to try and justify a ban by linking mexican violence to american guns, since were apparently the only place guns come from despite the fact the most available weapon in the world is an AK47.


> Liberals LOVE the First Amendment. God forbid
> anyone tries to trample on it. You can throw Jesus
> in a jar of piss, and it's okay with them. But as
> soon as you want to protect the Second Amendment
> or attempt to keep some powers for the states,
> it's "This is why you're wrong and I'm right."
> It's absolute nonsense.

The do as I say and not as I do hypocrisy is out of control. Theres absolutely no consistency with their actions. Im really sick of hearing how the 2nd amendment was some how for hunting as well despite the bill of rights being all about protecting citizens from the government. Apparently the founding fathers just wanted to mix it up for fun and throw in a hunting one at #2 of all places.

> The splinter groups (i.e. the Tea Party) have
> realized they're just as unelectable as the far
> left elements of the Democratic Party. As a
> result, the GOP has become more centrist recently,
> but it's tough to be a proponent of some austerity
> when we live in a quasi-welfare state. As Margaret
> Thatcher so eloquently put it, welfare states are
> great until you run out of other people's money.

Theres extreme elements in the tea party for sure that dont do the GOP any favors with who they nominate, that can be said for every group though. The fact that they have no leaders does hurt them overall as they do have some good points, they can just be horrible at expressing them. It also didnt help that MSNBC and CNN did everything they could to demonize them while supporting OWS who turned into a borderline domestic terrorist group.


> As I said, neither is great. Reid is better than
> some. Honestly, I wish Tom Daschle was still in
> the Senate; he'd kick a lot of these guys in the
> ass and insist that the Senate does something.

Someone whether it be Reid or someone else needs to say its time to stop being partisan hacks and actually do something. People always like to say Regan couldnt get elected by the modern GOP, when the truth is JFK couldnt get elected by the modern Dem party right now.


> And of course, the American public doesn't see it
> like that. Obama's issue is that he's a weak
> personality. Rather than elect someone with some
> balls, the American public chose the smiley black
> man. It helped that John McCain was an awful
> candidate. He walked in with no experience, and he
> was stuck in a situation where he knew nobody and
> had no clue as to what to do.

I didnt like McCain either but between the two id take McCain. I would have rather had Hillary than Obama in all honesty. Hes behind on every single thing and sometimes gives some speeches that sound alright but then does completely different things. He always wants everything done quickly too before people can figure out what exactly hes proposing. If he wasnt black theres no chance he would have been elected and that alone is enough to know hes an awful choice for the job.


> Reid is better than most. Joe Lieberman was kicked
> out of the party, and Al Gore seems to be done
> with politics. There aren't that many visible
> moderates left in the Democratic Party. Max Baucus
> is too old to run; he doesn't want to. The rest of
> the moderates are too afraid of the party
> leadership.

It is a shame that Liberman got the boot. I disagreed with him on a number of things but no one would ever accuse him of not having Americas best interests in mind. He was one of the guys who you could work out a compromise with or even find on your side from the get go if he thought it was the right thing to do. The senate and the dems need more of him and less Pelosis and Debbie Waserman Schultz.

Hopefully the moderates will get fed up and say were taking the party back at somepoint. Together they have more power than they realize if someone had the balls to step up.


> Remember, Obama's administration is never in the
> wrong. It's never his fault, it's always someone
> else's. Rice more or less apologized for our free
> speech. Obama is backing what appears to be an
> Islamic dictatorship in the making. He seems to
> have installed another one in Libya. Of course,
> when all of these countries turn Islamist, it
> won't be Obama's fault, it'll be someone else's.

I forgot for a second hes infallible. Im not sure if hes just clueless or he really wants islamic dictatorships or even whats worse, but the middle east is now a more dangerous place than it was 5 years ago. The governments that are coming to power will be much more extreme than anything that was there. We arent going to chance 2000+ years of warfare history over night like people like to act like we can. Then of course we thought it was a good idea to give Egypt fighter jets, how long until were shooting those down.


> There's a statistic from the CDC or the FBI. It
> says that black males are responsible for roughly
> 60% of all gun related violence. We focus too much
> on things like Newtown. I'm not saying that it
> wasn't terrible. However, twice or three times the
> number killed in Newtown are killed in inner
> cities every night. Where's the CNN coverage?
> Where's the outrage? The answer is: it doesn't
> make for good TV or good analysis. It's not until
> something occurs in a white, suburban area. Then
> everyone is up in arms.

Exactly, theres some others that black males are disproportionally responsible for gun deaths or being a victim of a gun death. The Newton shooting was terrible but the only way thats getting stopped is if someone else was there to shoot him.

Ive yet to hear a legitimate response from anyone on how people that dont respect murder laws will obey gun laws? Or is guns are so bad why has gun crime been on the decline for years while sales have been increasing? Those two things alone should be more than enough to stop this stupid ban in its tracks. If you cant answer that you dont have enough of an understanding of the issue to know how to make any real difference in it. Changing the culture in inner cities is the only way youll make a real difference in the gun violence.

Id also say that gun crime isnt as bad as its made out to be. 12000k deaths a year in a country of 300 million is far from an epidemic especially with how concentrated it is in certain areas of a city. Its not something to brag about but were not exactly living in the wild west either.

> Is it deliberate racism? In my opinion, no. But
> it's racism inherent in our society.

Its politically correct racism imo. Its not politically correct to talk about race and anything when gun violence absolutely does have a race aspect to it, numbers dont lie. It just feeds into all the other reverse racism crap we deal with today. If a white guy gets into a fight with a black guy its a hate crime, but when 2 white reporters are beaten senseless in norfolk by a group of black guys over Treyvon its just assault.

If people want race to stop being an issue then they need to stop making it one. Reverse racism is still racism. Affirmative action is a form of racism too and frankly should be insulting to minorities that it implies they can only succeed when things are handed to them.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this is all very
> fascinating....................but since you guys
> are so really pressed about race, then let's get
> REAL about race and gun violence - end this
> bullshit about who really is dying at the end of a
> bullet
>
> pic unrelated


Or gordon more pics more bullshit. You do understand suicide isnt gun violence right? Of course you dont.

Suicide isnt relevant in anyway and throws off your cute picture. People will kill themselves no matter what if they want to kill themselves.

How about some more stats from a more recent year from the very pro gun conservative brady campaign..........


"DID YOU KNOW? African-Americans have the highest rates of firearm death (including homicides, suicides and unintentional shooting deaths) among racial and ethnic groups in the U.S.

In 2007, the firearm death rate for African-Americans was 21.5 firearm deaths per 100,000 population. The second and third highest firearm death rates were among Whites (9.4), and American-Indian/Alaska Natives (9.0) (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)).

African-American children and teens are almost five times as likely as their white peers to be killed by firearms (11.30 per 100,000 African-American youth vs. 2.31 per 100,000 white youth) (NCIPC)).

African-American males ages 15 to 19 are almost 5 times as likely as their white peers and more than twice as likely as their Hispanic or American-Indian/Alaska Native peers to be killed by firearms (Children's Defense Fund, p. 16, 2009).

In 2008, in addition to fatalities, 30,984 African-Americans were treated for firearm injuries in emergency rooms, followed with 19,338 Whites, and 16,903 Hispanics (other categories not detailed; rates not available) (NCIPC).

DID YOU KNOW? Gun homicides are responsible for most firearm deaths among African-American and Hispanic-Americans, whereas gun suicides account for most firearm deaths among Whites and American-Indian/Alaska Natives.

In 2007, 84 percent of African-American gun deaths were from homicide (NCIPC).

In 2007, 68 percent of Hispanic-American gun deaths were from homicide (NCIPC).

In 2007, African-Americans represented 13 percent of the population yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims (Langley, 2010).

In 2007, 82 percent of African-American homicide victims were killed with guns (Langley, 2010).

From 1999 to 2005, while the national homicide rate was stable, the firearm homicide rate for African-American men ages 25-44 increased by a third in large cities and suburbs (Guoquing, 2008).

In 2007, 80 percent of gun deaths among Whites were from suicide (NCIPC).

In 2007, 56 percent of American-Indian/Alaska Native firearm deaths were from suicide (NCIPC).

For all ages, the most urban counties have 1.03 times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties (Branas, p. 1750). This means that, relative to their populations, the most rural and the most urban counties have roughly the same number of gun deaths. Rural counties have more gun suicides; urban areas have more gun homicides."

Once again though thank you from chiming in to present more incorrect information about a subject you clearly have no understanding of.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> DID YOU KNOW? Gun homicides are responsible for
> most firearm deaths among African-American and
> Hispanic-Americans, whereas gun suicides account
> for most firearm deaths among Whites and
> American-Indian/Alaska Natives.
>


Gordo only cares about white kids.

So 3X as many black kids and young adults are killing each other with hand guns every day than the 20 at Sandy Hook. Who cares. They be poor and black and they don't make as good dumb cartoon pics.

Liberal Logic 102 wrote: .......you do understand suicide isnt gun violence right? o_0

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 wrote: .......you do
> understand suicide isnt gun violence right?
> o_0
>
> pic unrelated

Honey Gordo Don't Care Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Gordo only cares about white kids.
>
> So 3X as many black kids and young adults are
> killing each other with hand guns every day than
> the 20 at Sandy Hook. Who cares. They be poor
> and black and they don't make as good dumb cartoon
> pics.


Lets be fair to gordo, we dont have enough evidence to call him a racist yet. Afterall the talking points and pierce morgan havent covered that yet.

From all his other responses its painfully obvious that he just have no clue about what hes talking about.

But thankfully he keeps contributing his well thought out informed posts where he only deals with issues and responds when hes been proven wrong by facts....

On his Thursday podcast, comedian and Fox News contributor Adam Carolla confronted the push for Gun Control in the wake of December’s tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

His rant, inspired by former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ opening remarks before a congressional committee on Wednesday, focused on the racial component of gun control. According to Carolla, the author of “Not Taco Bell Material,” the calls for gun control only come when it happens somewhere besides inner-city urban areas.

“Listen, here’s the deal,” Carolla said. “It’s nice. It’s not going to do anything, but it’s nice. There’s too many [guns] out in circulation. It’s kind of people control we need to get over. And you know, whenever they do this math by the way — I was listening to the radio today. You know, this whole Sandy Hook thing — in Chicago they basically have two Sandy Hooks a month worth of dead kids that we don’t really give a shit about because it’s inner-city kids and we don’t count them. It happens — when it happens to the white kids or it happens in the theater, then it’s a big deal. But it goes on every day in the inner city, and no one seems to care about it.”

Not talking about gun violence in the inner-city and only raising the issue when it happens in the suburbs has a racial component, Carolla added.

“Over the course statistically, that’s how many dead kids there are,” Carolla said. “It’s been going on. It’s still going on. It continues to go on. We don’t seem to have any answers for it or we don’t seem to want to present any answers for it. I don’t know why. There’s a racial component to it. We’re all chicken-shit hypocrites, so no one wants to talk about that. But what’s more racist — hey when the white kids are dead, we’re all going to make a big fucking flap about guns? But when all the blacks and Mexicans are dead, ‘Shh, don’t say anything. We don’t want to upset them.’ Don’t want to upset who, the dead people?”

“What’s racist?” he continued. “What’s the more racial component here? Talking about — oh we only dead white people, or dead white kids. But all the dead kids of color, ‘No, not going to bring that up. We’re not going to talk about gun control when it comes to that — when it comes to those people?’”

January 30, 2013 at 5:39pm
By BYP

Topics: American Values, black community, Black Youth, Chicago, education, gun violence, Latino youth, Poverty, R.I.P.

SIGN THIS PETITION: President Obama! Make a Speech in Chicago Addressing the Crisis of Gun Violence!

Click here to sign a petition asking that President Obama make a speech in Chicago addressing the crisis of gun violence in Black and Latino communities!

This speech must layout specific policies on how the current administration and the country will work to save the lives and improve the futures of Black and Latino youth.

We know that President Obama cannot solve the issue of gun violence alone. However, he can call the nation to consciousness about the need for a response to this crisis.

President Obama rightly went to Newtown to comfort the families who lost children in that horrible tragedy. It is now time he came home to Chicago and comforted the over 500 families who lost loved ones to violence in the last year alone.

It is time he talked honestly with the nation about all the factors that threaten the lives of young Black and Latino youth; namely gun violence and the availability of guns, the absence of living wage jobs, the shortcomings of our public education system, the mass incarceration of young people, and yes, the bad choices that young people make sometimes.

All of these failures diminish the humanity of Black and Latino youth as well as the moral leadership of the nation.

We are facing a crisis that demands the leadership of our President. Please stand up for and with Black and Latino youth by signing this petition.

MAYOR BOOKER: 'LEGAL GUN BUYERS AREN'T CAUSING MURDERS IN NEWARK, CHICAGO AND OTHER PLACES'

CORY BOOKER, NEWARK MAYOR (D-N.J.): To me, the data should drive our decision making. So I know, I’m not afraid of people having guns who are law abiding citizens. In the analysis of gun murders and shootings in my city, I could only find one in the entire time I’ve been mayor – and unfortunately there have been hundreds and hundreds – where a person who was involved in a shooting where they had their gun legally, where they legally acquired their gun. The guns that are causing carnage in our cities, my city and our country, every single year are acquired illegally.

Anyone going out shooting tonite? Even the "responsible" get a little wild and crazy occasionally.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He also only picks that stat because a lot of
> other crimes rates are much higher in societies
> without guns since criminals have nothing to fear
> but the police.

In some of these countries, the police are the ones committing the crimes. Of course, he won't tell you that. Piers Morgan should be kicked off of the air. Larry King was going senile, but at least he insisted on having a relatively moderate show.

> I can respect people that at least make well
> thought out responses, Morgan does not fall into
> that category. Hes an ideological hack, he cant
> ever tell you why he believes what he does only
> that he does. As soon as facts are presented he
> just has to grandstand on emotional arguments
> since its all he knows.

It's a free country. People have the right to disagree with me. However, you have to support your arguments with fact, not emotions. This is a lot of what's irking me about the gun control advocates. Very few of them use facts. There's a huge emotional appeal for many people, especially after the horror of Newtown. I get that. People need to listen to facts, not to what the talking heads of Maddow, O'Reilly, and Morgan tell them.

> Im not even sure I would say we have issues with
> guns in this country, just that we have issues and
> some people tend to lash out with guns. If you
> want the school shootings to stop have the media
> stop covering them. All theyve done is become a
> way for twisted or mentally ill individuals to
> leave their mark on society on the way out. If
> they didnt get the fame it would seem like a lot
> less viable way. Its like why some people throw
> themselves in front of the metro instead of
> swallowing a bottle of pills, they want attention
> on the way out.

I'd say our issue with guns is rooted in the fact that we don't keep them away from crazies. I agree that the best way to stop school shootings is to stop covering them. That crazy who shot up the theater in Aurora? CNN and MSNBC covered him for three days straight. If you want to kill yourself, fine. Just don't take ten people with you.

> But I couldnt agree more that its nothing but feel
> good we dont like them crap. Part of me cant help
> but wonder if fast and furious was going to be
> used to try and justify a ban by linking mexican
> violence to american guns, since were apparently
> the only place guns come from despite the fact the
> most available weapon in the world is an AK47.

I don't think Fast and Furious was really designed to do that. Remember, it technically started under George W. Bush. The spirit of it was designed to lead to the identification and capture of the Zetas and Sinaloa cartel heads, leading to the Mexican government regaining power.

> The do as I say and not as I do hypocrisy is out
> of control. Theres absolutely no consistency with
> their actions. Im really sick of hearing how the
> 2nd amendment was some how for hunting as well
> despite the bill of rights being all about
> protecting citizens from the government.
> Apparently the founding fathers just wanted to mix
> it up for fun and throw in a hunting one at #2 of
> all places.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens from the government. The First Amendment is designed to protect expression and religion from government influence. The third protects citizens from government tyranny. The second is designed to give citizens the means to prevent government tyranny. The Second Amendment never was intended for hunting.

> Theres extreme elements in the tea party for sure
> that dont do the GOP any favors with who they
> nominate, that can be said for every group though.
> The fact that they have no leaders does hurt them
> overall as they do have some good points, they can
> just be horrible at expressing them. It also
> didnt help that MSNBC and CNN did everything they
> could to demonize them while supporting OWS who
> turned into a borderline domestic terrorist group.

OWS had a valid point. The 99% tend to get screwed by the 1%. It had no way of dealing with it other than occupying public places and becoming a pain in the ass. Anonymous is another terrorist group that MSNBC and CNN love. I agree, the Tea Party is right on some things. We need to cut spending, and we need to stop kicking the can down the road. There are better ways to do that than not raising the debt ceiling. However, the Tea Party seems to have accomplished something in making it an issue. Under every other president, the deficit and debt have been treated with a type of salutary neglect.

> Someone whether it be Reid or someone else needs
> to say its time to stop being partisan hacks and
> actually do something. People always like to say
> Regan couldnt get elected by the modern GOP, when
> the truth is JFK couldnt get elected by the modern
> Dem party right now.

I disagree, JFK probably could get elected. I'm confident that LBJ wouldn't be allowed as a running mate. Moreover, I'm sure that Harry Truman and FDR would be rejected for not being "progressive" enough. The DNC is becoming too far left for its own good. I think the 2010 elections were a big wakeup call. I think 2014 will show this as well.

> I didnt like McCain either but between the two id
> take McCain. I would have rather had Hillary than
> Obama in all honesty. Hes behind on every single
> thing and sometimes gives some speeches that sound
> alright but then does completely different things.
> He always wants everything done quickly too
> before people can figure out what exactly hes
> proposing. If he wasnt black theres no chance he
> would have been elected and that alone is enough
> to know hes an awful choice for the job.

I didn't want Obama. I wanted Hillary. McCain was a good choice; he selected an awful vice presidential candidate. Romney wasn't a bad choice either; he selected an awful vice presidential candidate in Paul Ryan. Obama seems lost without his teleprompter. The only reason he had Osama killed was Hillary's insisting that it be done.


> It is a shame that Liberman got the boot. I
> disagreed with him on a number of things but no
> one would ever accuse him of not having Americas
> best interests in mind. He was one of the guys
> who you could work out a compromise with or even
> find on your side from the get go if he thought it
> was the right thing to do. The senate and the
> dems need more of him and less Pelosis and Debbie
> Waserman Schultz.

There are still a few like Lieberman in Congress. Unfortunately, they're generally afraid to break with the party, or they're afraid of the conseqeuences.


> Hopefully the moderates will get fed up and say
> were taking the party back at somepoint. Together
> they have more power than they realize if someone
> had the balls to step up.

Extremism is never popular in the US. Both parties will move toward the center or disappear. I think the GOP is becoming more centrist than it appeared in the election. The DNC needs to do so as well.


> I forgot for a second hes infallible. Im not sure
> if hes just clueless or he really wants islamic
> dictatorships or even whats worse, but the middle
> east is now a more dangerous place than it was 5
> years ago. The governments that are coming to
> power will be much more extreme than anything that
> was there. We arent going to chance 2000+ years
> of warfare history over night like people like to
> act like we can. Then of course we thought it was
> a good idea to give Egypt fighter jets, how long
> until were shooting those down.

He knows nothing about foreign affairs. Rand Paul attempted to block the sale of F-16s. The amendment was tabled. We made a mistake removing Mubarak. Gadaffi was never a friend of the US, but I don't know what'll come in his place. Yemen is going to go Islamist at this rate. Tunisia has done so. He thought the Arab Spring would become some wonderful bastion of democracy. It became the Islamist Winter. In Syria, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. At this rate, it's better to back Assad. The FSA is linked to mujahadeen. Mujahadeen tend to be Islamists.

Obama believes that there are very clearly defined rights and wrongs in foreign affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Asaad is killing his own people. Asaad is keeping Syria from turning Islamist. He's doing terrible things for the greater good. That doesn't make him evil. It doesn't make him good either.

> Ive yet to hear a legitimate response from anyone
> on how people that dont respect murder laws will
> obey gun laws? Or is guns are so bad why has gun
> crime been on the decline for years while sales
> have been increasing? Those two things alone
> should be more than enough to stop this stupid ban
> in its tracks. If you cant answer that you dont
> have enough of an understanding of the issue to
> know how to make any real difference in it.
> Changing the culture in inner cities is the only
> way youll make a real difference in the gun
> violence.

The issue is cultural. Law-abiding people will give up their guns; criminals won't. Let's not fuck over the law-abiding people so we can feel as though we did something positive. People have a right to defend themselves.

> Id also say that gun crime isnt as bad as its made
> out to be. 12000k deaths a year in a country of
> 300 million is far from an epidemic especially
> with how concentrated it is in certain areas of a
> city. Its not something to brag about but were
> not exactly living in the wild west either.

12000/300 million= 0.004% of the population. Proportional to our size, we have a moderate violent crime rate.

> If a white guy gets into a fight
> with a black guy its a hate crime, but when 2
> white reporters are beaten senseless in norfolk by
> a group of black guys over Treyvon its just
> assault.

Agreed. If Trayvon Martin kills Zimmerman, nobody cares. But since Zimmerman kills Martin... it suddenly becomes a national case. By the way, it's looking worse and worse for Trayvon's supporters.

> If people want race to stop being an issue then
> they need to stop making it one. Reverse racism
> is still racism. Affirmative action is a form of
> racism too and frankly should be insulting to
> minorities that it implies they can only succeed
> when things are handed to them.

The Supreme Court is poised to rule it unconstitutional. About time.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:

> In some of these countries, the police are the
> ones committing the crimes. Of course, he won't
> tell you that. Piers Morgan should be kicked off
> of the air. Larry King was going senile, but at
> least he insisted on having a relatively moderate
> show.

Real journalists must be turning over in their graves with what gets passed off as reporting now a days. Im surprised that Morgan hasnt been picked up by MSNBC hed fit right in over there.


> It's a free country. People have the right to
> disagree with me. However, you have to support
> your arguments with fact, not emotions. This is a
> lot of what's irking me about the gun control
> advocates. Very few of them use facts. There's a
> huge emotional appeal for many people, especially
> after the horror of Newtown. I get that. People
> need to listen to facts, not to what the talking
> heads of Maddow, O'Reilly, and Morgan tell them.

Exactly, you better be able to explain to me why you believe what you do. If you cant do that your just a partisan hack. O'Reilly is an egotistical jerk, but I will give him that he does at least use facts in his talking points. His interviews can be painful to watch as he cant even take a joke but unlike the other two if you can get past the terrible personality theres at least some substance to what he says. Maddow and Morgan need to rejoin reality.

Really none of this gun control debate has been based in fact. Im still waiting to here where these 40% of gun sales are happening where theres no background check. There isnt a chance in hell that "stat" is even remotely true.


> I'd say our issue with guns is rooted in the fact
> that we don't keep them away from crazies. I agree
> that the best way to stop school shootings is to
> stop covering them. That crazy who shot up the
> theater in Aurora? CNN and MSNBC covered him for
> three days straight. If you want to kill yourself,
> fine. Just don't take ten people with you.

Id agree the problem is the wrong people get their hands on them, I dont really think that would change much in their behavior or has anything to do with how guns are currently sold. Its one of those facts of life that have always been true of humans. A small segment of every population will have bad intentions. Maybe if we had more positive leaders and less Obama divide and conquer types people wouldnt be so wound up and prone to snap. It is ironic that the ALCU is the ones most responsible though for why mental health cant be accessed unless court ordered.

Society babying everyone isnt helping either. The sports leagues that dont keep score and everyone getting a trophy ect. It doesnt prepare kids for the real world and they get these massive shocks that some of them cant handle.


> I don't think Fast and Furious was really designed
> to do that. Remember, it technically started under
> George W. Bush. The spirit of it was designed to
> lead to the identification and capture of the
> Zetas and Sinaloa cartel heads, leading to the
> Mexican government regaining power.

The one under bush was different. It was much smaller and around 2005 I believe, they pulled the plug on it when they realized it was a bad idea. If it was anyone else but Holder and the current inner circle Id give them the benefit of the doubt, but I wouldnt put anything past this group. Remember they tried to blame the gun dealers when it first came out and there was way to much talk of how american guns are killing mexican citizens during the whole time the program was running before we knew about it. Notice how once fast and furious became public mexican drug deaths werent blamed on us guns anymore.


> The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect
> citizens from the government. The First Amendment
> is designed to protect expression and religion
> from government influence. The third protects
> citizens from government tyranny. The second is
> designed to give citizens the means to prevent
> government tyranny. The Second Amendment never was
> intended for hunting.

Exactly, all 10 of them are citizen protection from the government. Anyone that says that the 2nd amendment is for hunting has no understanding of the constitution or just doesnt like it. Any elected official who implies its for hunting should be removed from office immediately for incompetence.


> OWS had a valid point. The 99% tend to get screwed
> by the 1%. It had no way of dealing with it other
> than occupying public places and becoming a pain
> in the ass. Anonymous is another terrorist group
> that MSNBC and CNN love. I agree, the Tea Party is
> right on some things. We need to cut spending, and
> we need to stop kicking the can down the road.
> There are better ways to do that than not raising
> the debt ceiling. However, the Tea Party seems to
> have accomplished something in making it an issue.
> Under every other president, the deficit and debt
> have been treated with a type of salutary neglect.

OWS sort of had a point as a whole, but their members were boarderline terrorists. They were pretty hypocritical too, we hate big corporations and the man but sit on our ipads all day, somehow apple never falls under the corporate giant category. There is a segment of the 1 percent that just wants to screw people for their own good, not all of them though maybe not even most of them. A lot of them do donate a lot of money. Some are complete assholes though.

It just always annoyed me how dismissed the tea party was from day 1 because they didnt like their message while OWS was embraced for months while they rioted. I am happy the tea party was able to bring the issue of spending to light now the question is will we do anything about it, so far the answer has been no.


> I disagree, JFK probably could get elected. I'm
> confident that LBJ wouldn't be allowed as a
> running mate. Moreover, I'm sure that Harry Truman
> and FDR would be rejected for not being
> "progressive" enough. The DNC is becoming too far
> left for its own good. I think the 2010 elections
> were a big wakeup call. I think 2014 will show
> this as well.

Hopefully 2014 will. If they get complete control like in 09/10 Im scared to see what will be passed through at this point.


> I didn't want Obama. I wanted Hillary. McCain was
> a good choice; he selected an awful vice
> presidential candidate. Romney wasn't a bad choice
> either; he selected an awful vice presidential
> candidate in Paul Ryan. Obama seems lost without
> his teleprompter. The only reason he had Osama
> killed was Hillary's insisting that it be done.

McCain was an ok choice, he lost as soon as he opened a debate with a line about how Obama would be a great president. He needed to push on things that he was getting free passes on and chose not too. Romney was as center as it gets, its just shows that being reasonable doesnt win elections. I like Ryan personally but short of Rubio or a split ticket with Hillary dont think Romney was going to win with any running mate with how in the bag the media was for Obama.

> There are still a few like Lieberman in Congress.
> Unfortunately, they're generally afraid to break
> with the party, or they're afraid of the
> conseqeuences.

Itd be nice to hear from them, they must be hiding in the corner terrified of getting kicked out of the party. Personally I wouldnt be worried about that if I was them since if you have to follow Pelosis lead to get power they may be in the wrong party anyway. You dont have to agree 100 percent with everything the party says.


> Extremism is never popular in the US. Both parties
> will move toward the center or disappear. I think
> the GOP is becoming more centrist than it appeared
> in the election. The DNC needs to do so as well.

Obama certainly ran center for the election then ran so far out into left field after it he cant even see the fence anymore. I wish more people could see through the fake runs to the center for an election, if your so confident in what you believe in why be so ashamed of it in the general election.


> He knows nothing about foreign affairs. Rand Paul
> attempted to block the sale of F-16s. The
> amendment was tabled. We made a mistake removing
> Mubarak. Gadaffi was never a friend of the US, but
> I don't know what'll come in his place. Yemen is
> going to go Islamist at this rate. Tunisia has
> done so. He thought the Arab Spring would become
> some wonderful bastion of democracy. It became the
> Islamist Winter. In Syria, we're stuck between a
> rock and a hard place. At this rate, it's better
> to back Assad. The FSA is linked to mujahadeen.
> Mujahadeen tend to be Islamists.

Mubarak Gadaffi Asaad are all terrible people. That said their countries are more of a danger to humanity without them. Its really just a cultural thing, dictators seem to be a necessary evil in that part of the world with how much of a war culture they have that wont be changed over night or in a few years. It will take decades and letting more extreme governments take over isnt a step in the right direction. All of them are going to end up being disasters that troops will probably have to sent too in future generations.

> Obama believes that there are very clearly defined
> rights and wrongs in foreign affairs. Nothing
> could be further from the truth. Asaad is killing
> his own people. Asaad is keeping Syria from
> turning Islamist. He's doing terrible things for
> the greater good. That doesn't make him evil. It
> doesn't make him good either.

I have no idea what he believes in all honesty. Hes never once been out front of any of these things he just kind of lets things happen then picks a side. Seems to be a lot more of a follower than a leader. Funny thing is some polls show that arabs had more respect and liked Bush better than Obama.


> The issue is cultural. Law-abiding people will
> give up their guns; criminals won't. Let's not
> fuck over the law-abiding people so we can feel as
> though we did something positive. People have a
> right to defend themselves.

At some point too if they tried to confiscate all guns wed just have another civil war. But it really isnt hard to understand that people following the laws arent the problem. If laws solved things banning murder should have been enough to stop the killings.


> 12000/300 million= 0.004% of the population.
> Proportional to our size, we have a moderate
> violent crime rate.

Thats a fair assessment, but the media just compares the number of gun murders to other countries and then forgets that were 10 times their size. Not to mention with all the different cultures we have, and mexico on our southern border Id say weve done a pretty good job at reducing gun violence from where it used to be. There really is no comparable country on earth to our size and different demographics.


> Agreed. If Trayvon Martin kills Zimmerman, nobody
> cares. But since Zimmerman kills Martin... it
> suddenly becomes a national case. By the way, it's
> looking worse and worse for Trayvon's supporters.

And of course it must have been race motivated too. Between Obama saying his son would look like that, MSNBC editing the 911 calls, and then showing a picture of zimmerman where he looked like crap and an 8 or 12 year old Trayvon it was disgusting how much race baiting was going on. It was clear from day one that they had an agenda and they were going to make the story fit their idea whether or not the facts agreed.


> The Supreme Court is poised to rule it
> unconstitutional. About time.

Id hope so but I dont see this court doing it. Justice Thomas is pretty outspoken against it, he cant stand it. He actually hates the fact he went to yale because they use it since he said everyone just assumed that he was there because of affirmative action and not his hard work.

Find it interesting that the NRA keeps saying that we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. If that is the cast, how come Wayne Limpdick your president got a deferment which allowed him not to serve his country during the Viet Nam War. He had a doctor say he had a nervious condition that would not allow him to serve. I had a nervious condition before I went off to Nam, its called scared. What a spineless little turd. Pound on the podium and tell us how our rights are being taken away, please send us your dollars, and I,m the spineless head of the NRA.

gt3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Find it interesting that the NRA keeps saying that
> we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally
> ill people. If that is the cast, how come Wayne
> Limpdick your president got a deferment which
> allowed him not to serve his country during the
> Viet Nam War. He had a doctor say he had a
> nervious condition that would not allow him to
> serve. I had a nervious condition before I went
> off to Nam, its called scared. What a spineless
> little turd. Pound on the podium and tell us how
> our rights are being taken away, please send us
> your dollars, and I,m the spineless head of the
> NRA.

Bill Clinton beat the Draft and wrote his Arkansas Draft Board
a letter explaining that he was too smart to go into the military.
If Wayne is getting the job done, more power to him. Harry Reid
said the assault weapons ban is doomed in the Senate and will never
make it through the House. Get over it.

^^ Dont bring FACTS into this clusterfuck!!!

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I say "fuck" a lot...

When is the next meet you lazy fucks?

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------
> Exactly, you better be able to explain to me why
> you believe what you do. If you cant do that your
> just a partisan hack. O'Reilly is an egotistical
> jerk, but I will give him that he does at least
> use facts in his talking points. His interviews
> can be painful to watch as he cant even take a
> joke but unlike the other two if you can get past
> the terrible personality theres at least some
> substance to what he says. Maddow and Morgan need
> to rejoin reality.

As you've probably figured out, I'm not exactly conservative. I identify more as a Conservative Democrat than anything else. My party seems to be slowly eliminating people like me. I agree that Maddow and Piers are out of their respective minds. I have no idea why they're on TV.

> Really none of this gun control debate has been
> based in fact. Im still waiting to here where
> these 40% of gun sales are happening where theres
> no background check. There isnt a chance in hell
> that "stat" is even remotely true.

There's no EVIDENCE that stat is even close to true.

> Id agree the problem is the wrong people get their
> hands on them, I dont really think that would
> change much in their behavior or has anything to
> do with how guns are currently sold. Its one of
> those facts of life that have always been true of
> humans. A small segment of every population will
> have bad intentions. Maybe if we had more
> positive leaders and less Obama divide and conquer
> types people wouldnt be so wound up and prone to
> snap. It is ironic that the ALCU is the ones most
> responsible though for why mental health cant be
> accessed unless court ordered.

I don't think it's so much Obama's fault as it is our system as a whole. I'm very critical of Obama when he deserves it. Yes, I think he is propagating the partisan Washington for his own good. The divide and conquer politics seem to be ending. Both Boehner and Obama realize that they can't keep feuding over nothing if they wish to deal with the sequestration.


> The one under bush was different. It was much
> smaller and around 2005 I believe, they pulled the
> plug on it when they realized it was a bad idea.
> If it was anyone else but Holder and the current
> inner circle Id give them the benefit of the
> doubt, but I wouldnt put anything past this group.

I believe Fast and Furious continued. The format may have changed slightly, but Bush started the program around 2006. It continued unabated until Brian Terry was killed.

> Exactly, all 10 of them are citizen protection
> from the government. Anyone that says that the
> 2nd amendment is for hunting has no understanding
> of the constitution or just doesnt like it. Any
> elected official who implies its for hunting
> should be removed from office immediately for
> incompetence.

It's either state or citizen protection. The federal government CAN help people. However, it tends to hurt people when it's overly large or overly intrusive. I think it's overly large and slowly becoming overly intrusive. This is why trust in government has gone way down. I don't trust our government because it doesn't have OUR (the people's) best interest in mind.

> OWS sort of had a point as a whole, but their
> members were boarderline terrorists. They were
> pretty hypocritical too, we hate big corporations
> and the man but sit on our ipads all day, somehow
> apple never falls under the corporate giant
> category.

This is a fantastic observation. Apple does horribly intrusive things. Nobody cares, because Apple gives us the Ipad, iPod, iPhone, and all that assorted crap with the "i" prefix. Apple doesn't fall under the corporate giant category because Apple gives them things they want. Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world. Nobody bitches about their corporate welfare. Oil companies provide a far more valuable service. Yes, they're not nice and fuzzy most of the time. They provide something we need. But since most of OWS were the hipster bullshit artists, the oil companies became the face of evil. As did the banking companies.




> Hopefully 2014 will. If they get complete control
> like in 09/10 Im scared to see what will be passed
> through at this point.

The DNC NEEDS to return to the center. Hell, I joined the GOP in protest. I hate Pelosi and her ilk. The moderates of both parties are dying off. Max Baucus and a handful of others are the only moderates left.


> McCain was an ok choice, he lost as soon as he
> opened a debate with a line about how Obama would
> be a great president. He needed to push on things
> that he was getting free passes on and chose not
> too. Romney was as center as it gets, its just
> shows that being reasonable doesnt win elections.
> I like Ryan personally but short of Rubio or a
> split ticket with Hillary dont think Romney was
> going to win with any running mate with how in the
> bag the media was for Obama.

Romney may have been a centrist. He had to run far to the right to get the GOP's nomination. This is what screwed him. That and pandering to the Tea Party with Paul Ryan's selection.

> Obama certainly ran center for the election then
> ran so far out into left field after it he cant
> even see the fence anymore. I wish more people
> could see through the fake runs to the center for
> an election, if your so confident in what you
> believe in why be so ashamed of it in the general
> election.

> Mubarak Gadaffi Asaad are all terrible people.
> That said their countries are more of a danger to
> humanity without them. Its really just a cultural
> thing, dictators seem to be a necessary evil in
> that part of the world with how much of a war
> culture they have that wont be changed over night
> or in a few years. It will take decades and
> letting more extreme governments take over isnt a
> step in the right direction. All of them are
> going to end up being disasters that troops will
> probably have to sent too in future generations.

It's a lesser of two evils. Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Asaad are the least of two evils. Two are gone (Gaddafi is dead). We're backing the FSA, which has Al-Qaeda links.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As you've probably figured out, I'm not exactly
> conservative. I identify more as a Conservative
> Democrat than anything else. My party seems to be
> slowly eliminating people like me. I agree that
> Maddow and Piers are out of their respective
> minds. I have no idea why they're on TV.

We definitely disagree on a good amount of things but youre reasonable about it and defend your positions. I can respect if people can defend their position hell even if they were just honest and said I dont like guns I want them gone, but when people just spew talking points nonsense and cant think for themselves theres a problem.

It is a shame that people like you are getting pushed out of your party. Some of the new Dems would probably consider you a GOP member with the direction theyre headed.


> There's no EVIDENCE that stat is even close to
> true.

The only way I know you can buy a gun without a check is from another person at a gun show. Those sales probably dont even make up 1/10 of 1 percent if youve ever been to one. That and pre 1860ish collectors items, it would be humorous to hear the argument that kentucky long rifles are a danger though.


> I don't think it's so much Obama's fault as it is
> our system as a whole. I'm very critical of Obama
> when he deserves it. Yes, I think he is
> propagating the partisan Washington for his own
> good. The divide and conquer politics seem to be
> ending. Both Boehner and Obama realize that they
> can't keep feuding over nothing if they wish to
> deal with the sequestration.

For guns I think its more that he just doesnt like them. He never has and never will. Boehner seems open to compromise, Ive yet to see anything from Obamas side that they have any interest in making concessions. As much as people complain about partisanship, it wins in voting. Until people stop voting for it thats all well have.

> I believe Fast and Furious continued. The format
> may have changed slightly, but Bush started the
> program around 2006. It continued unabated until
> Brian Terry was killed.

It didnt the people people killed it. You can argue it was revived on a much larger scale but it wasnt an active program that was taken over.


> It's either state or citizen protection. The
> federal government CAN help people. However, it
> tends to hurt people when it's overly large or
> overly intrusive. I think it's overly large and
> slowly becoming overly intrusive. This is why
> trust in government has gone way down. I don't
> trust our government because it doesn't have OUR
> (the people's) best interest in mind.

I agree. Common sense needs to be implemented for the government to help. Countless dollars are wasted on stupid things that could be much better used. Right now the government just seems to want to run everyones lives while they live in luxury.


> This is a fantastic observation. Apple does
> horribly intrusive things. Nobody cares, because
> Apple gives us the Ipad, iPod, iPhone, and all
> that assorted crap with the "i" prefix. Apple
> doesn't fall under the corporate giant category
> because Apple gives them things they want. Apple
> is one of the most profitable companies in the
> world. Nobody bitches about their corporate
> welfare. Oil companies provide a far more valuable
> service. Yes, they're not nice and fuzzy most of
> the time. They provide something we need. But
> since most of OWS were the hipster bullshit
> artists, the oil companies became the face of
> evil. As did the banking companies.

It really would be humorous if it wasnt so true. As long as you make things they like they dont care. Like the chick fil a boycott. They were so outraged by gay marriage they wouldnt eat there because it was easy, meanwhile they continue to use oil from countries where gays get stoned.

The most ironic part about apple is that they liked it because it wasnt microsoft, now it bigger than they are.


> The DNC NEEDS to return to the center. Hell, I
> joined the GOP in protest. I hate Pelosi and her
> ilk. The moderates of both parties are dying off.
> Max Baucus and a handful of others are the only
> moderates left.

For our countries sake they really do. They wont though until voters force them or the moderates say enough is enough were taking the party back.


> Romney may have been a centrist. He had to run far
> to the right to get the GOP's nomination. This is
> what screwed him. That and pandering to the Tea
> Party with Paul Ryan's selection.

He was screwed from day one because he wasnt Obama. The media was going to burn him at the stake and defend obama no matter what so they were racists. Hillary got the same treatment because if you dont vote for a black man it must be because you hate blacks.


>
> It's a lesser of two evils. Mubarak, Gaddafi, and
> Asaad are the least of two evils. Two are gone
> (Gaddafi is dead). We're backing the FSA, which
> has Al-Qaeda links.

And thats the dirty secret no one wants to talk about. Well be fighting those were backing soon enough when theyre launching terrorist attacks at us

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We definitely disagree on a good amount of things
> but youre reasonable about it and defend your
> positions. I can respect if people can defend
> their position hell even if they were just honest
> and said I dont like guns I want them gone, but
> when people just spew talking points nonsense and
> cant think for themselves theres a problem.

Thank you, while we certainly disagree, I think you're much the same.

> It is a shame that people like you are getting
> pushed out of your party. Some of the new Dems
> would probably consider you a GOP member with the
> direction theyre headed.

Yes, many people would. Full disclosure: I supported Obama in 2008. I supported him again this year. I actually volunteered with his campaign, hoping that there would be some sort of return to center. Looking back, I can't believe how wrong I was.

> The only way I know you can buy a gun without a
> check is from another person at a gun show. Those
> sales probably dont even make up 1/10 of 1 percent
> if youve ever been to one. That and pre 1860ish
> collectors items, it would be humorous to hear the
> argument that kentucky long rifles are a danger
> though.

The gun show loophole isn't absolute at all. Most of the reputable dealers conduct background checks. Of course, there are several who don't. It's the same thing with a liquor store. You have a lot of responsible owners who card everybody, regardless of age. Then you have the few who sell to anyone who looks to be 21. Those 1855 Springfields are SO dangerous; they can propel a .69 caliber bullet several hundred yards. Oh, did I mention that you're probably not going to hit anything? No, that doesn't matter. It has military features, so it's clearly an assault weapon.

The entire assault weapon argument is nonsensical. By its standards, the M1 Carbine is an assault weapon. So is the Ruger 22. The M1 Carbine was designed for cooks. The Ruger 22 was based off of the M1 Carbine. Both of them have 15 round detachable box magazines. Therefore, they must be dangerous. Of course, handguns cause 96.7% of all firearm deaths, but that's such an inconvenient truth.

> For guns I think its more that he just doesnt like
> them. He never has and never will. Boehner seems
> open to compromise, Ive yet to see anything from
> Obamas side that they have any interest in making
> concessions. As much as people complain about
> partisanship, it wins in voting. Until people
> stop voting for it thats all well have.

It's hilarious, honestly. You have MSNBC bitching about "gerrymandering" and the like. The Democrats were in control of the House for 40 years. They controlled much of the South from the DNC's inception. You don't stay in control of an area without gerrymandering. In his first term, Obama NEVER invited the GOP leadership to the White House. Then he complained about partisanship. Isn't this basic logic? If you constantly shun one group, it's going to be less likely to care about you or your minimal legacy.

> It didnt the people people killed it. You can
> argue it was revived on a much larger scale but it
> wasnt an active program that was taken over.

It appears as though it was reduced to a minimal level during 2007-2008, and then started back up again in 2009. The program was unofficially dead, but officially still active. Overall, though, you have to wonder about what idiot dreamed this one up. "Let's give guns to drug cartels, that'll solve the issue." It seems like whoever decided to do this had a temporary (or permament) lack of brain function.

> I agree. Common sense needs to be implemented for
> the government to help. Countless dollars are
> wasted on stupid things that could be much better
> used. Right now the government just seems to want
> to run everyones lives while they live in luxury.

Queen Michelle anybody? Seriously, why couldn't the Marine Band just play the Star-Spangled Banner. Why did we have to be subjected to Beyonce's attempt? We seem to make a big deal out of defense spending. I agree that it's a big part of our budget. Even if you cut defense to the bare minimum level needed to defend the nation, we still run a deficit. Obama's plan for the Navy will destroy it. It's not a question of if, it's one of when. We need a 250 ship Navy to have a true two-ocean navy. Or has that idea gone by the wayside as well? You know, because it's one of those silly traditions necessary for the defense of our nation.

> It really would be humorous if it wasnt so true.
> As long as you make things they like they dont
> care. Like the chick fil a boycott. They were so
> outraged by gay marriage they wouldnt eat there
> because it was easy, meanwhile they continue to
> use oil from countries where gays get stoned.
> The most ironic part about apple is that they
> liked it because it wasnt microsoft, now it bigger
> than they are.

First, Apple has become a monopoly in its own right. It's potentially more of a monopoly than Microsoft ever was. The portable music industry is DOMINATED by Apple. The choices are very limited outside of iPods. The Zune was a good idea; it wasn't well marketed. Microsoft isn't done yet. Bill Gates will come back if it means saving his legacy. Second, the whole Chick-Fil-a thing was idiocy. A private company has the right to its own opinions. The liberals believe that rights apply to everyone-until that someone disagrees with a liberal point of view. Healthcare, cellphones, etc. are not basic rights. They're privileges. We look at OWS and Anonymous and call them heroes. They're not heroes; they're terrorists.

It pisses me off to no end how we seem to love these fringe groups who are doing "good" for humanity. In fact, they're doing awful things. Same with the whole Kony 2012 crap. "We will stop at nothing!" Yeah, we'll stop at nothing short of actually trying to capture him ourselves. These people like the easy, feel good solution. That's why this country is slowly going to hell.

> He was screwed from day one because he wasnt
> Obama. The media was going to burn him at the
> stake and defend obama no matter what so they were
> racists. Hillary got the same treatment because
> if you dont vote for a black man it must be
> because you hate blacks.

Some of what has happened with Obama has been racism. I think many people would agree with that. Some of it is based on his own incompetence. I wanted Hillary in 2008. We elected the smiley black man, better known as the empty suit. The only reasons for his illusion of competence have been two very shrewd people: Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

> And thats the dirty secret no one wants to talk
> about. Well be fighting those were backing soon
> enough when theyre launching terrorist attacks at
> us.

The biggest foreign policy mistake Obama made was supporting any group in the Arab Spring.

What was your opinion of the State of the Union? I thought he brought up actual problems, but his solutions were absolute crap.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, many people would. Full disclosure: I
> supported Obama in 2008. I supported him again
> this year. I actually volunteered with his
> campaign, hoping that there would be some sort of
> return to center. Looking back, I can't believe
> how wrong I was.

I had a feeling he was going to go hard left once he didnt have to win reelection again. His old speeches and associations were to far left for someone who wants to lead as centrist.

I can forgive you just learn from that mistake lol.


> The gun show loophole isn't absolute at all. Most
> of the reputable dealers conduct background
> checks. Of course, there are several who don't.
> It's the same thing with a liquor store. You have
> a lot of responsible owners who card everybody,
> regardless of age. Then you have the few who sell
> to anyone who looks to be 21. Those 1855
> Springfields are SO dangerous; they can propel a
> .69 caliber bullet several hundred yards. Oh, did
> I mention that you're probably not going to hit
> anything? No, that doesn't matter. It has military
> features, so it's clearly an assault weapon.

All of the dealers have to do background checks, there may be shady dealers around the country like there are for anything but Ive yet to see one. It wouldnt take long either for them to get shutdown since word would spread if they did it on a large basis, but I agree theres always some bad apples in there.

Lol your springfield made me think of the old wars where they all lined up to shoot and even then half the shots would still miss. Now that was insane people did that. I would have ducked as soon as I saw them getting ready to fire.

> The entire assault weapon argument is nonsensical.
> By its standards, the M1 Carbine is an assault
> weapon. So is the Ruger 22. The M1 Carbine was
> designed for cooks. The Ruger 22 was based off of
> the M1 Carbine. Both of them have 15 round
> detachable box magazines. Therefore, they must be
> dangerous. Of course, handguns cause 96.7% of all
> firearm deaths, but that's such an inconvenient
> truth.

Or if you put a pistol grip on a bolt action all of a sudden its an assault rifle, I dont understand the confusion about how largely cosmetic things are the difference. They may make a bit of a difference shooting from 100+ yards, but the shootings theyre supposedly trying to prevent those features have no impact on how lethal they are.

I dont think they have any plans to stop with assault rifles, thats just step one. They see an opportunity to get rid of them and then will slowly go after everything else knowing they could never get a total gun ban without civil war.


> It's hilarious, honestly. You have MSNBC bitching
> about "gerrymandering" and the like. The Democrats
> were in control of the House for 40 years. They
> controlled much of the South from the DNC's
> inception. You don't stay in control of an area
> without gerrymandering. In his first term, Obama
> NEVER invited the GOP leadership to the White
> House. Then he complained about partisanship.
> Isn't this basic logic? If you constantly shun one
> group, it's going to be less likely to care about
> you or your minimal legacy.

Dont forget Chris Mattews being happy Sandy happened because it helped the president.

But youre right he couldnt care less about what the GOP had to say and still really doesnt. Bipartisan has somehow morphed to mean everyone should agree with me.


> It appears as though it was reduced to a minimal
> level during 2007-2008, and then started back up
> again in 2009. The program was unofficially dead,
> but officially still active. Overall, though, you
> have to wonder about what idiot dreamed this one
> up. "Let's give guns to drug cartels, that'll
> solve the issue." It seems like whoever decided to
> do this had a temporary (or permament) lack of
> brain function.

Its not an awful idea on its own. On a very small monitored scale I can see the logic. On a large scale though you had to know it was going to get out of control like most of them did. What really makes me wonder is what the goal of it really was, the whole time all we heard about was how american guns were killing in mexico. I really hope its goal wasnt to blame deaths in mexico on us guns to get them banned.

I dont believe for a second that the cartels would have had trouble getting guns without the programs, but I dont like the coverup of what they were doing or the attempt to blame the gun stores at first. Not to mention I dont really want to be lectured about how assault rifles are too dangerous for me to own but its okay for the mexican cartels.



> Queen Michelle anybody? Seriously, why couldn't
> the Marine Band just play the Star-Spangled
> Banner. Why did we have to be subjected to
> Beyonce's attempt? We seem to make a big deal out
> of defense spending. I agree that it's a big part
> of our budget. Even if you cut defense to the bare
> minimum level needed to defend the nation, we
> still run a deficit. Obama's plan for the Navy
> will destroy it. It's not a question of if, it's
> one of when. We need a 250 ship Navy to have a
> true two-ocean navy. Or has that idea gone by the
> wayside as well? You know, because it's one of
> those silly traditions necessary for the defense
> of our nation.

Well didnt you hear the debates we have these ships that go underwater now apparently a handful of them is all we need and they never need repairs or to be replaced. Yet at the same time we want women on submarines too which will drive up the cost of their operation makes a lot of sense.

Why should defense be the first thing cut anyway. We send so much BS aid around the world and spend money on some of the dumbest studies at universities that you could ever think of yet we cant find waste anywhere else to start?


> First, Apple has become a monopoly in its own
> right. It's potentially more of a monopoly than
> Microsoft ever was. The portable music industry is
> DOMINATED by Apple. The choices are very limited
> outside of iPods. The Zune was a good idea; it
> wasn't well marketed. Microsoft isn't done yet.
> Bill Gates will come back if it means saving his
> legacy.

This may change with Steve Jobs gone, but when he was in charge they were the 300 pound gorilla when it came to corporations. Outside of oil no one may have had money cash on hand or better profits and they might have even given those a run for their money at their peak.

>Second, the whole Chick-Fil-a thing was
> idiocy. A private company has the right to its own
> opinions. The liberals believe that rights apply
> to everyone-until that someone disagrees with a
> liberal point of view. Healthcare, cellphones,
> etc. are not basic rights. They're privileges. We
> look at OWS and Anonymous and call them heroes.
> They're not heroes; they're terrorists.

Its just more do as I say not as I do. The same people constantly referencing the first amendment were the first upset that the owner of a private company used his. Boycotting over something like that really is stupid, if you had to agree politically with the higher ups to use a company you couldnt buy anything from anywhere. Not to mentioned it backfired big time and gave them record sales. People just heard chick fil a all the time and craved it because it is delicious.

> It pisses me off to no end how we seem to love
> these fringe groups who are doing "good" for
> humanity. In fact, they're doing awful things.
> Same with the whole Kony 2012 crap. "We will stop
> at nothing!" Yeah, we'll stop at nothing short of
> actually trying to capture him ourselves. These
> people like the easy, feel good solution. That's
> why this country is slowly going to hell.

It really was kind of the perfect picture of everything thats wrong with todays society. Dont like something, whine about it then get violent when that doesnt work. Meanwhile the camping out is just a big party and hurting businesses in the area.


> Some of what has happened with Obama has been
> racism. I think many people would agree with that.
> Some of it is based on his own incompetence. I
> wanted Hillary in 2008. We elected the smiley
> black man, better known as the empty suit. The
> only reasons for his illusion of competence have
> been two very shrewd people: Joe Biden and Hillary
> Clinton.

I think its largely just how sheltered hes been by the media. If he was a white man he would have never won/survived the primaries much less the general election. That to me tells me hes not qualified. Being for someone just because of their race is still racism. I would have much rather had Hillary than him and it scares me that Biden is a heartbeat away from the presidency.

> The biggest foreign policy mistake Obama made was
> supporting any group in the Arab Spring.

Which sadly has been his only real significant foreign policy contribution to date.

> What was your opinion of the State of the Union? I
> thought he brought up actual problems, but his
> solutions were absolute crap.

He did bring up some solid problems when he got through the fair share, global warming, and the other talking point bs. And the bs about how you cant cut to a balanced budget, actually you can. You cant tax your way into a balanced budget with how much we spend.

But I agree no real solutions. Like for the failing bridges sounded like a more of those shovel ready jobs. I was under the impression thats what the last trillion was supposed to be for. If were going to spend the money thats a good place to put it but honestly how much does he plan to spend.

Seemed a lot of the same old where we know what the problems are but he has no idea how to address the issues or the consequences of what hes asking. Like not using any gas in the next 20 years good luck with that.

PS what the hell was that bit about a voting experience improvement about? How about some voter ID laws to make sure people voting are who they say they are. How is it more important to make sure a 15 year old doesnt see an R rated movie than it is to make sure votes are legitimate for the President of the United States

It was nice to see the new poster child for the NRA was in attendance for the Presidents speech. Ted Nudent embodies all that is redneck, stupid, but I do feel that the camo cowboy hat was a nice touch.