Fed up doctors slam guns as public health menace. NRA tells the to ‘stay in their own lane.’

The NRA does not tell doctors how to practice medicine.

Doctors have no business telling the NRA how to defend Our Second Amendment Rights.

The NRA has no business trying to speak on what is or is not a public health issue. The path from the NRA’s door leads to the ER and then too often to the funeral home.

Glad to see a principled rebuff to the god-awful NRA. The modern NRA is in fact an unmitigated evil

Actually the NRA is amazingly successful despite their best efforts.

According to the CDC, legally prescribed drugs kill more people than guns.

Using the logic of the doctor's group, the drugs prescribed by doctors are a public health menace.

Logic kills Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the CDC, legally prescribed drugs
> kill more people than guns.
>
> Using the logic of the doctor's group, the drugs
> prescribed by doctors are a public health menace.


The problem with your logic is that no gun has EVER killed a person.

Using your logic, we need to outlaw cars and trucks because of the 30K people killed each year on America's Hi-Ways.

Then we have the radical terrorists that run over dozens of people with a box truck.

Guns kill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NRA has no business trying to speak on what is
> or is not a public health issue. The path from
> the NRA’s door leads to the ER and then too
> often to the funeral home.


So tell us how you liberals plan to take the guns away from violent negro criminals who send all those people to the ER. Your previous gun "control" efforts have failed there. In fact,when you passed these gun "control" laws, violent negro criminals sent at least as many to the ER and often more.

You want this gun control libs, we don't. So tell us, how do you plan to control violent negro criminals? Or is it racist to take guns away from violent negro criminals?








'contro

GUNS = DEATH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glad to see a principled rebuff to the god-awful
> NRA. The modern NRA is in fact an unmitigated evil


That wasn't any rebuff, principled or not.

NRA hates people. Loves guns.

The NRA is people. It consists of its members and would be nothing without them. Unfortunately there are far more NRA members or more specifically people who identify as members than the anti-gun agenda can comprehend. Furthermore, the anti-gun agenda has yet to propose a sensible solution to the problem of ‘gun violence’ because more laws do nothing to stop crazy or evil people from killing people with guns. If anti-gunners put half their effort into the multitude of factors that drive violence something might actually change but alas, that would be taking steps to solve a problem and that’s not really what they want to do.

Medical Malpractice now accounts for 250,000 Deaths Annually in U.S. 3rd leading Cause of Death..33,000 Deaths related to Firearms...Someone Needs to Stay in Their Lane!

Doctors save millions of lives Guns only kIll and maim. Everyone needs doctors. No one needs guns.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doctors save millions of lives Guns only kIll
> and maim. Everyone needs doctors. No one needs
> guns.

Derp

50% of all doctors graduated at the bottom half of their class.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No one needs
> guns.


What do you do when confronted by an armed, violent negro criminal?

Reference a link...or this is fake news

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doctors save millions of lives Guns only kIll
> and maim. Everyone needs doctors. No one needs
> guns.


In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”

That statement grossly misleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “effective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”

Likewise, a 1995 paper in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims. Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”

The purpose of having a gun for defense is not to kill criminals but to prevent them from killing or harming others. Accordingly, the same 1995 paper found that “only 8%” of people who use a gun for defense “report wounding an adversary.” Given the study’s sample size, this 8% figure has a margin of sampling error of ± 4 percentage points with 95% confidence. The authors conclude that “the rather modest 8.3% wounding rate we found is probably too high” and that defensive gun uses “are less serious or dramatic in their consequences than our data suggest.”
...
For instance, the above-cited 1995 paper was based on a survey of 4,977 households, which found that at least 0.5% of households over the previous five years had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” Applied to the U.S. population using standard scientific methods, this amounts to at least 162,000 saved lives per year, excluding all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”

Since this data is from the 1990s and is based on people’s subjective views of what would have happened if they did not use a gun, it should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the same survey found that the number of people who used a gun for self-defense was about six times greater than the number who said that using the gun “almost certainly” saved a life. This amounts to at least 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year, including those in which lives were saved and those of lesser consequence.
...
In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” In response, the CDC asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence….” This committee studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed….”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/how-often-do-citizens-use-guns-to-stop-violence/

Physicians Group Launches Effort to Help Patients Find Pro-Gun Healthcare Providers

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170908/physicians-group-launches-effort-to-help-patients-find-pro-gun-healthcare-providers

that old "if guns are made illegal, so should cars, because both kill people" is one of the dumbest frickin arguments out there.

But, to many, it is a brilliant argument (judging by how often it is used) simply because it doesn't require much though. A little thought quickly unravels it as meaningless.

First, automobiles are HEAVILY regulated and taxed-their manufacture, use, everything. So right there comparisons between the two might end

Second, if cars were made "illegal", our economy would stop immediately. Immediately. Not so with guns.

As a matter of fact, you could regulate guns to the point that only cops and the military had them, and, there would be only the smallest dent in the economy-that being from the gun buying public.

Bottom line, cars have sooo much more utility to people vs the lives they might take (accidental or otherwise), vs the utility guns have to people vs the lives they take (on purpose or otherwise).

Try another thought

dumb argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that old "if guns are made illegal, so should
> cars, because both kill people" is one of the
> dumbest frickin arguments out there.
>
> But, to many, it is a brilliant argument (judging
> by how often it is used) simply because it doesn't
> require much though. A little thought quickly
> unravels it as meaningless.
>
> First, automobiles are HEAVILY regulated and
> taxed-their manufacture, use, everything. So right
> there comparisons between the two might end
>
> Second, if cars were made "illegal", our economy
> would stop immediately. Immediately. Not so with
> guns.
>
> As a matter of fact, you could regulate guns to
> the point that only cops and the military had
> them, and, there would be only the smallest dent
> in the economy-that being from the gun buying
> public.
>
> Bottom line, cars have sooo much more utility to
> people vs the lives they might take (accidental or
> otherwise), vs the utility guns have to people vs
> the lives they take (on purpose or otherwise).
>
> Try another thought

There is no Constitutional right to own or drive a car.

Different argument

ICR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dumb argument Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > that old "if guns are made illegal, so should
> > cars, because both kill people" is one of the
> > dumbest frickin arguments out there.
> >
> > But, to many, it is a brilliant argument (judging
> > by how often it is used) simply because it doesn't
> > require much though. A little thought quickly
> > unravels it as meaningless.
> >
> > First, automobiles are HEAVILY regulated and
> > taxed-their manufacture, use, everything. So right
> > there comparisons between the two might end
> >
> > Second, if cars were made "illegal", our economy
> > would stop immediately. Immediately. Not so with guns.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, you could regulate guns to
> > the point that only cops and the military had
> > them, and, there would be only the smallest dent
> > in the economy-that being from the gun buying public.
> >
> > Bottom line, cars have sooo much more utility to
> > people vs the lives they might take (accidental or
> > otherwise), vs the utility guns have to people vs
> > the lives they take (on purpose or otherwise).
> >
> > Try another thought
>
> There is no Constitutional right to own or drive a car.

So what...? Guns are regulated today? Eight yr. olds buying guns??
What an idiot.

Join a well regulated militia

A car is central to my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness...sooo...right there in the constitution

dumb argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, automobiles are HEAVILY regulated and
> taxed-their manufacture, use, everything. So right
> there comparisons between the two might end
>
> Second, if cars were made "illegal", our economy
> would stop immediately. Immediately. Not so with
> guns.
>
> As a matter of fact, you could regulate guns to
> the point that only cops and the military had
> them, and, there would be only the smallest dent
> in the economy-that being from the gun buying
> public.
>
> Bottom line, cars have sooo much more utility to
> people vs the lives they might take (accidental or
> otherwise), vs the utility guns have to people vs
> the lives they take (on purpose or otherwise).
>
> Try another thought

First, firearms are much more heavily regulated than cars. They are taxed and regulated at each step of the process, including ownership. A convicted felon can own a car, but not a gun.

Arguing that we should accept the deaths caused by automobile use because cars are economically profitable to our society is a morally questionable position. How much is a life worth? But if you insist, guns save lives as shown here: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/how-often-do-citizens-use-guns-to-stop-violence/
++++++++++
For instance, the above-cited 1995 paper was based on a survey of 4,977 households, which found that at least 0.5% of households over the previous five years had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” Applied to the U.S. population using standard scientific methods, this amounts to at least 162,000 saved lives per year, excluding all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”

Since this data is from the 1990s and is based on people’s subjective views of what would have happened if they did not use a gun, it should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the same survey found that the number of people who used a gun for self-defense was about six times greater than the number who said that using the gun “almost certainly” saved a life. This amounts to at least 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year, including those in which lives were saved and those of lesser consequence.
+++++++++++

Other peer reviewed studies place the number at 2-3 million times a year that a crime is prevented by a gun owner. Guns have every bit as many positives to offer society as cars.

There are over 300 million guns in the US owned by 60-80 million people. They are used daily for legal activities (hunting, sports, recreation) Less than 1% will be used in a crime. Why don't you go after the bad guys instead of taking cheap shots at law abiding citizens who just happen to disagree with you?
The democrat party has been Jim Crowing people they disagree with for 1.5 centuries. Now they think it's gun owners turn. It was reprehensible when they were doing it to blacks; it's no less reprehensible when they do it to gun owners.

dumb argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Second, if cars were made "illegal", our economy
> would stop immediately. Immediately. Not so with
> guns.

Wow, just wow. Who’s talking about the economy? Take away guns and you take away liberty. Taking away guns is the only solution to a crime and violence problem liberals ever have. Such deep thinkers and critical problem solvers.


>
> As a matter of fact, you could regulate guns to
> the point that only cops and the military had
> them, and, there would be only the smallest dent
> in the economy-that being from the gun buying
> public.

You forgot to add criminals to your list of the only people who have guns. Pray tell how are you going to get the guns from criminals? I really want to know the answer to this question.


>
> Bottom line
>

You have to be high as shit to think this argument makes any sense.

found it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A car is central to my pursuit of life, liberty
> and happiness...sooo...right there in the
> constitution

Where does the Constitution mention cars? I must have missed something.

Asker of Questions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you do when confronted by an armed, violent negro criminal?

I do the same things as when some MS-13 Caravan decides to march through my back yard. In the meantime and like everyone else, simply keeping a gun in my home would increase the odds odds of my dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of nearly four. Guns INCREASE your personal risk. They do NOT reduce it. They are the opposite of using your seatbelt.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asker of Questions Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do you do when confronted by an armed,
> violent negro criminal?
>
> I do the same things as when some MS-13 Caravan
> decides to march through my back yard. In the
> meantime and like everyone else, simply keeping a
> gun in my home would increase the odds odds of my
> dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of nearly
> four. Guns INCREASE your personal risk. They do
> NOT reduce it. They are the opposite of using
> your seatbelt.

Bullshit.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asker of Questions Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do you do when confronted by an armed,
> violent negro criminal?
>
> I do the same things as when some MS-13 Caravan
> decides to march through my back yard. In the
> meantime and like everyone else, simply keeping a
> gun in my home would increase the odds odds of my
> dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of nearly
> four. Guns INCREASE your personal risk. They do
> NOT reduce it. They are the opposite of using
> your seatbelt.


I asked a question. This poster didn't answer it. He did sidestep it, put up something alleged to be an answer, but really isn't one.

The question was: What do you do when confronted by an armed, violent negro criminal?

Please answer the question.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asker of Questions Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do you do when confronted by an armed,
> violent negro criminal?
>
> I do the same things as when some MS-13 Caravan
> decides to march through my back yard. In the
> meantime and like everyone else, simply keeping a
> gun in my home would increase the odds odds of my
> dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of nearly
> four. Guns INCREASE your personal risk. They do
> NOT reduce it. They are the opposite of using
> your seatbelt.

This is your opinion not a fact. Just be real for a moment and say what you really mean ... I’m an evil bastard.

Failed Logic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with your logic is that no gun has
> EVER killed a person.

Tell us whether the number one weapon involved in the horrific senseless killings we see so regularly is guns or some other weapon? Acting as if you are just plain too dumb even to understand the situation we are in may be convincing, but it's not very effective.

> Using your logic, we need to outlaw cars and
> trucks because of the 30K people killed each
> year on America's Hi-Ways.

No, you've fucked up the logic again. You just aren't any good at logic. If you were, you would have realized that society takes all sorts of steps to advance transportation safety. Seat belts and airbags are mandatory. DUI is illegal. You must pass a driving proficiency test. Your vehicles must pass annual safety inspections. Roads and traffic controls are designed and implemented to assure the safety of drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. The list goes on.

What do we do with regard to guns?

> Then we have the radical terrorists that run over
> dozens of people with a box truck.

Yes, right-wing terrorism is just as regrettable as left-wing terrorism. We need fewer terrorists in our midst. Just as we need fewer guns.

yep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Different argument

Gun nuts love their diversion and deflection. Anything to avoid having to face the bloody facts.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yep Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Different argument
>
> Gun nuts love their diversion and deflection.
> Anything to avoid having to face the bloody facts.

^^^The problem with this is the left defines and argument that isn't the "approved" argument is automatically deflection and diversion. The DNC uses MSNPC and NPCNN to program their NPC lemmings to give this response any time the NPC is faced with a legitimate argument. If the person persists, the DNC programmed NPC is then programmed to respond with more name calling like racist, sexist, nazi, fascist, moron, trailer park or redneck and goober.

These libtomaton NPCs don't understand the diff beetween education and indoctrination. They're the second one.

NoMo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other peer reviewed studies place the number at 2-3 million
> times a year that a crime is prevented by a gun owner.

GROSS BULLSHIT based on unvetted personal testimony gathered by the NRA. When examined by sane people, incidents of gun-owners hearing a noise in the garage, grabbing a gun, then going outside to find nothing were found to have been included as examples of successful defensive use of a gun.

As efficient as guns are at killing, the FBI's 2016 number of 331 justifiable homicides by a private citizen is much more telling. There would be multiple zeros after that number if gun-tard tales were anywhere near correct.

> Guns have every bit as many positives to offer society as cars.

LOL!!!

> There are over 300 million guns in the US owned by
> 60-80 million people. They are used daily for
> legal activities (hunting, sports, recreation)
> Less than 1% will be used in a crime. Why don't
> you go after the bad guys instead of taking cheap
> shots at law abiding citizens who just happen to
> disagree with you?

Store your guns under lock and key out in the boondocks where you use them to recreate. Say YES to smart-guns that can only be fired by their owner. Get behind strong laws to get gun-abusers off the streets and out of our lives. Support better gun security by making gun-owners responsible for damage done by guns that they failed to protect and were thus stolen from them.

> The democrat party has been Jim Crowing people
> they disagree with for 1.5 centuries. Now they
> think it's gun owners turn. It was reprehensible
> when they were doing it to blacks; it's no less
> reprehensible when they do it to gun owners.

This crap again? Read some history, dummy. Political parties shift over time, but by whatever name, it was always the racist right-wing reactionaries and yahoos who supported slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, and the like. The liberals of those post-Civil War and succeeding days were the Radical Republicans. Go ahead and admit that you were just too stupid to have known that.

Brother Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You forgot to add criminals to your list of the
> only people who have guns. Pray tell how are you
> going to get the guns from criminals? I really
> want to know the answer to this question.

Japan has almost no guns. They also have almost no gun-related deaths. And no, the criminals don't bother to have guns either, despite what your next lying post will try to claim.

Apples&Oranges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where does the Constitution mention cars? I must
> have missed something.

You have definitely missed a lot of things, starting with the Ninth Amendment --

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Simple Fact: There has NEVER been a time in the history of the Republican when it was necessary for a right to be enumerated for it to exist.

Asker of Questions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question was: What do you do when confronted by an armed,
> violent negro criminal? Please answer the question.

Please read the answer previously provided. I do the same things as when some MS-13 Caravan decides to march through my back yard. How much more specific do I need to be?

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brother Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You forgot to add criminals to your list of the
> > only people who have guns. Pray tell how are
> you
> > going to get the guns from criminals? I really
> > want to know the answer to this question.
>
> Japan has almost no guns. They also have almost
> no gun-related deaths. And no, the criminals
> don't bother to have guns either, despite what
> your next lying post will try to claim.


Seriously, how is this an answer? You can’t answer a question. Who’s lying? Sounds like you are at least making broad generalize assumptions about the people of Japan. Additionaly, you’re a pretty closed-minded individual who may possibly be adept at projection but short on solutions. I’d wager you have a “hate has no home here ...” or some other sign professing virtue in your front yard.

Yawn, you're boring.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asker of Questions Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The question was: What do you do when
> confronted by an armed,
> > violent negro criminal? Please answer the
> question.
>
> Please read the answer previously provided. I do
> the same things as when some MS-13 Caravan decides
> to march through my back yard. How much more
> specific do I need to be?

Specifically, use your words. It’s not hard.

Lovey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is your opinion not a fact. Just be real for a moment
> and say what you really mean ... I’m an evil bastard.

No, it's a fact established in depositions taken by researchers from those bought in as GSW victims to emergency rooms across the country. It is a fact that those who live with guns in the home are almost four times more likely to die from a GSW. Some of that comes from an increased risk of suicide, some from an increased risk of homicide, and some from an increased risk of death from an accidental discharge of a gun.

These are the facts of life even for those who don't want to believe them.

Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yawn, you're boring.

Yawn, you're fucking stupid as shit. And you cannot prove otherwise.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lovey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is your opinion not a fact. Just be real
> for a moment
> > and say what you really mean ... I’m an evil
> bastard.
>
> No, it's a fact established in depositions taken
> by researchers from those bought in as GSW victims
> to emergency rooms across the country. It is a
> fact that those who live with guns in the home are
> almost four times more likely to die from a GSW.
> Some of that comes from an increased risk of
> suicide, some from an increased risk of homicide,
> and some from an increased risk of death from an
> accidental discharge of a gun.
>
> These are the facts of life even for those who
> don't want to believe them.

Nope, still just your opinion. I wish I could accept this as a fact it would make life so much easier. 33 million guns in this country ... how do gun owners not make themselves extinct by your logic?

Flush yourself, dumbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bro Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yawn, you're boring.
>
> Yawn, you're fucking stupid as shit. And you
> cannot prove otherwise.


Nice projection. Proved it.

Nuts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Specifically, use your words. It’s not hard.

For the benefit of the worse than incredibly stupid, suppositions of the illogical are not valid. For instance, an inquiry as to what one might do if one were to be attacked by an all-powerful cyborg while riding on the Metro would be simple nonsense. As are your own dumbfuck lines of inquiry.

Lovely Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, still just your opinion. I wish I could accept this as
> a fact it would make life so much easier. 33 million guns
> in this country ... how do gun owners not make themselves
> extinct by your logic?

For no valid reason at all, there are nearly ten times your quaint estimate of 33 million guns in this country, and those who foolishly choose to keep those guns in the home do indeed drop out of the population at unnecessarily accelerated rates.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brother Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You forgot to add criminals to your list of the
> > only people who have guns. Pray tell how are
> you
> > going to get the guns from criminals? I really
> > want to know the answer to this question.
>
> Japan has almost no guns. They also have almost
> no gun-related deaths. And no, the criminals
> don't bother to have guns either, despite what
> your next lying post will try to claim.

Check your info - Japan has a barbaric justice system that shows no mercy, and if you fuck up in Japan, your life will become a living hell.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nuts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Specifically, use your words. It’s not hard.
>
> For the benefit of the worse than incredibly
> stupid, suppositions of the illogical are not
> valid. For instance, an inquiry as to what one
> might do if one were to be attacked by an
> all-powerful cyborg while riding on the Metro
> would be simple nonsense. As are your own
> dumbfuck lines of inquiry.


Still not an answer. Let me try this again with a scenario you may be able to relate too.

Hypothetically, you’re in a situation where there is a mentally ill deranged white guy who just smashed a window to your home and is now holding a gun to your whatever-doodle. He’s going to harm your innocent little friend and then who knows what. Do you feel like calling the police is your best option or do you want to try to defend your little friend and most likely yourself and whoever or whatever else is in you immediate vicinity? Maybe you could just lecture the crazy white guy on gun control and simply bore him to death. Please I’m really trying to understand why you think that guns are always a problem and never a solution. If you can’t see both sides than you are in fact close-minded and a major part of the problem.

NRA is right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NRA does not tell doctors how to practice
> medicine.
>
> Doctors have no business telling the NRA how to
> defend Our Second Amendment Rights.

It's people like you, so scared someone is going to take your guns away that you'd rather keep things status quo allowing the crazies to get guns. Are you so fucking stupid you don't realize how foolish that logic is? So foolish that it makes hard liners like you look as as fucked up as the people who shoot up schools churches and crowded venus? I mean you ARE supporting the crazies "Right to bear arms". You're a fucking moron buddy.

I'll bet if you accidentally shoot yourself in the foot A doctor will be the first person you call. Jesus you righttards are fucking stupid.

Pretty sure the left is the side supporting all the crazy. Just sayin

Yolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretty sure the left is the side supporting all
> the crazy. Just sayin


Yes they are. The whole government is corrupt. But the gun lobby motherfuckers, trumptarded republicans mostly, care only about selling guns. They don't give a fuck who they sell them too. Just pointing out that fact.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NoMo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Store your guns under lock and key out in the
> boondocks where you use them to recreate. Say YES
> to smart-guns that can only be fired by their
> owner. Get behind strong laws to get gun-abusers
> off the streets and out of our lives. Support
> better gun security by making gun-owners
> responsible for damage done by guns that they
> failed to protect and were thus stolen from them.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm going to attempt to discuss this in an adult and civilized manner with you, for one post, at least. I may be wasting Carey's bandwidth on this, as you do resort to name calling at anyone who disagrees with you, be it an intelligent disagreement, ignorant or a troll. While I can understand a schoolyard mode of conduct toward the last, the other two really don't require it, unless they're the first to do it.

......if nothing else, though, at least I'll be able to say I made the effort.


While storing the firearms in the "boondocks" may not be practical, the lock and key, on the surface, is reasonable.

"Smart guns" are too restrictive. Anyone in the household who has a legitimate need or legal purpose in the use of the firearm should be able to use it. The lock and key would suffice to keep the firearms from illegitimate users.

What sort of "strong laws" do you advocate? It is difficult for me to address this point without knowing specifically what you want in these laws.

Absolutely, you should hold owners of guns for being negligent, just as you hold any other owner of any other kind of property responsible for negligence in the use or keeping of that property. What's necessary here is to distinguish specifically what constitutes "reasonable care" vs. "negligence".

Here are some of the problems. Now please, when you attempt to address them, do so as would an adult rather than a schoolboy. Please refrain from the name calling, condescension or arbitrary dismissiveness.

People wonder why the NRA is so resistant even to "reasonable gun control". The answer isn't that difficult, although even the supposedly "brilliant" minds fail to see it. It's simple. If you give your opponent even the first millimeter, the next thing you know, he has the whole meter stick. You can damn the "slippery slope" and "straw man" arguments all that you will, with all the dismissiveness that is oh-so-characteristic of these so-called "Progressives". Keep in mind that doing so denies the truth that human beings are empirical creatures. They rely heavily on experience. They're aware of the gradualistic tactics of their opponents and know they must stand firm against them. These "Progressives" don't stop at "reasonable". If "progressives" don't stop at "reasonable", therefore are really unreasonable, why should the NRA be reasonable? This, then is the root of the
"progressives' " problem with the NRA.

None of these methods of "gun control" are new, except maybe the "smart guns". The technology for those has become widely available only relatively recently. As for the other methods, they are the same thing the "progressives" have been advocating, and, in some cases, have put in place, for 50 years. They have failed to achieve their stated purpose, which was to disarm violent criminals. In fact, when the court threw out D.C.'s gun law in the Heller case, the judge went as far as to say the only effect these gun control laws have had is to disarm law abiding citizens. They have failed to disarm violent criminals. What is wanted, then, is a law that will disarm violent criminals. All other laws are a waste of the taxpayers' money. No one has yet come up with a gun control law that will disarm violent criminals. The same old laws don't work.
Not only has it been proven by history, it's being proved today.

Few reasonable and legitimate owners of firearms disagree on the need to keep the careless or irresponsible gun owners in line. Again, though, they have a legitimate concern that this is only the first step whose objective is the disarming of legitimate owners of firearms. We agree that irresponsible and careless gun owners have given us legitimate firearms owners a bad name, as the "progressives" tend to lump us with the wahoos. We agree that irresponsible or careless gun owners should answer for their carelessness. The problem is that those who do not like the Second Amendment define the mere owning of a firearm as "irresponsible" and "careless".

What needs to happen is that the so-called "gun grabbers", the "owners of firearms" and the "gun owners" are all going to have to agree on a few things. ........as a start:

The gun grabbers agree that the controls stop at "reasonable" and are not the first step whose objective is to disarm the law abiding public.

The owners of firearms agree to the reasonable controls with the assurance that this is the end of them and there will be none further.


The gun owners understand that they must become firearms owners and assume the appropriate responsibility and care. Anyone who insists on remaining a gun owner will give up his guns.

As long as the Second Amendment and the court rulings associated with it stand, the gun grabbers will not achieve their objective. They must agree to be reasonable, stop at reasonable and give assurances to that. Until they do, the NRA and the gun owners are going to stand firm and oppose giving them even the smallest concession. The owners of firearms will have no choice but to stand with them.

PrItChArD2.() Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yolo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pretty sure the left is the side supporting all
> > the crazy. Just sayin
>
>
> Yes they are. The whole government is corrupt. But
> the gun lobby motherfuckers, trumptarded
> republicans mostly, care only about selling guns.
> They don't give a fuck who they sell them too.
> Just pointing out that fact.

Nope just your opinion. Can’t me on, buddy we’re trying to have a conversation here. Please try to add something of substance.

Brother Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dumb argument Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Second, if cars were made "illegal", our
> economy
> > would stop immediately. Immediately. Not so
> with
> > guns.
>
> Wow, just wow. Who’s talking about the economy?
> Take away guns and you take away liberty. Taking
> away guns is the only solution to a crime and
> violence problem liberals ever have. Such deep
> thinkers and critical problem solvers.
>
>
> >
> > As a matter of fact, you could regulate guns to
> > the point that only cops and the military had
> > them, and, there would be only the smallest
> dent
> > in the economy-that being from the gun buying
> > public.
>
> You forgot to add criminals to your list of the
> only people who have guns. Pray tell how are you
> going to get the guns from criminals? I really
> want to know the answer to this question.
>
>
> >
> > Bottom line
> >
>
> You have to be high as shit to think this argument
> makes any sense.

Who's talking about the economy?

I am. you stupid F***er.

The original point was to show how stupid comparing gun ownership to car ownership...who said it had to be limited to something within your sphere of comprehension?

I made the argument so,try to follow along


The return of the argument-breaker-down guy...such an air of authority by segmenting arguments and then replying to each with your angry BS.

But, since I introduced the argument, I can use whatever I want.

argument breaker down guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brother Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dumb argument Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > Second, if cars were made "illegal", our
> > economy
> > > would stop immediately. Immediately. Not so
> > with
> > > guns.
> >
> > Wow, just wow. Who’s talking about the
> economy?
> > Take away guns and you take away liberty.
> Taking
> > away guns is the only solution to a crime and
> > violence problem liberals ever have. Such deep
> > thinkers and critical problem solvers.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > As a matter of fact, you could regulate guns
> to
> > > the point that only cops and the military had
> > > them, and, there would be only the smallest
> > dent
> > > in the economy-that being from the gun buying
> > > public.
> >
> > You forgot to add criminals to your list of the
> > only people who have guns. Pray tell how are
> you
> > going to get the guns from criminals? I really
> > want to know the answer to this question.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bottom line
> > >
> >
> > You have to be high as shit to think this
> argument
> > makes any sense.
>
> Who's talking about the economy?
>
> I am. you stupid F***er.
>
> The original point was to show how stupid
> comparing gun ownership to car ownership...who
> said it had to be limited to something within your
> sphere of comprehension?
>
> I made the argument so,try to follow along
>
>
> The return of the argument-breaker-down guy...such
> an air of authority by segmenting arguments and
> then replying to each with your angry BS.
>
> But, since I introduced the argument, I can use
> whatever I want.

Still a dumb argument.

Good one.

Where does it say ANYTHING about the economy in the constitution.

Probably doesn't.

So, I guess that means that since it doesn't, it is a non-factor in any governing process, decision, etc.

The government can then basically crush the economy without worry, right, since it doesn't mention it in the constitution, right?

The economy is never a factor in governmental proceedings, then, since not mentioned in the constitution, huh?

Wow.

The argument is simple and sound.

Basically, those who compare gun ownership/use to automobile ownership/use forget to look at the OVERWHELMING difference in utility to the American way of life of one vs. the other...

As in, since guns can kill, just as cars can kill, if you call for the banning of the former, then it makes sense to call for the banning of the latter.

Patently ridiculous.

And then, the constitution is called in..."doesn't mention cars in the constitution"...as if that is the ONLY way something can be allowed to exist, if it is mentioned inn the constitution.

The utility of automobiles to American society far outstrips the utility of guns to American society.

Of course, where does it say anything about "utility to society in the constitution"?

I guess it doesn't, so, that then CAN NEVER BE A FACTOR in any governmental proceeding, decision, etc...right?

Oh brother what a bunch of simpletons

Proper Punishment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Check your info - Japan has a barbaric justice
> system that shows no mercy, and if you fuck up in
> Japan, your life will become a living hell.

What did that load of crapola have to do with guns? Nothing? Oh, never mind.

Nuts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still not an answer. Let me try this again with a
> scenario you may be able to relate too.

You should get a decent home security system. They are far more effective than guns and quite possibly cheaper as well.

(I bet you are too stupid to take that advice though.)

This argument is sooooooo boring.

Stop reading it then

NRA VVWNH Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Same old worn-out NRA bullshit all over again. What a pathetic but entirely unsurprising spectacle. The NRA lies more often than Trump, and you're to stupid to spot it in either case. As the result, you have no actual argument to put forward here at all. You are just another dismal gun-tard asshole. And yes, when I see an asshole, I call it an asshole. And you most definitely are one of those, no two ways about it.

You know, if some contaminated batch of lettuce were deemed capable of doing the sorts of damage that we all know full well guns are certain to do, what do you think the reaction would be? How about the reaction from assholes? Would that be any different?

Bottom Line: Guns make you (and everyone else) LESS safe, not MORE safe.

Lettuce is probably not in the constitution, so...

Probably means government cant do anything about it

"It is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 658 , 28 S. L. ed. 274, 276, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152, 155:

The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument, often heard, often repeated, and in this court never assented to, that when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language. Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing the Constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed. "

-- Mr. Justice Brewer, State of South Carolina v United States.

(^^^ More stuff they don't tell you about on FOX News.)

I think the poster above you may have been making that same exact point, using a few fewer words.

PrItChArD2.() Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA is right Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's people like you, so scared someone is going
> to take your guns away that you'd rather keep
> things status quo allowing the crazies to get
> guns. Are you so fucking stupid you don't realize
> how foolish that logic is? So foolish that it
> makes hard liners like you look as as fucked up as
> the people who shoot up schools churches and
> crowded venus? I mean you ARE supporting the
> crazies "Right to bear arms". You're a fucking
> moron buddy.
>
> I'll bet if you accidentally shoot yourself in the
> foot A doctor will be the first person you call.
> Jesus you righttards are fucking stupid.




No, lemming, it's smart people like us who see right through what the dems want to do instead of being morons like you who allow yourselves to be programmed into believing the gaslighting the dems are indoctrinating you with. We know the difference between reality and fantasy and we know the ideal dream world MSNPC and NPCNN tells you is available from the dems isn't available from anybody.

We don't have to ask the questions. We already know you libtomatons are so fucking stupid you allowed yourselves to be programmed and turned into NPCs.

You libtomatons are just as whacked as the AntiFa your DNC programmmers use to intimidate anybody who won't toe their line. You nutjobs ARE supporting the right of negro criminals to have unarmed law abiding citizens to prey on, RIGHT? RIGHT. You're nothing but a mindless automaton blindly obeying your DNC programmers. What a bunch of fucking dolts.

I don't have to worry about shooting myself in the foot. I learned proper firearm safety, took classes and am careful with my firearms.

You, on the other hand, are a mindless jackoff who blindly obeys his DNC masters and is incapable of real thought. What a fucking idiot. Obvious moron is obvious.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nuts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> >
>
> You should get a decent home security system.
> They are far more effective than guns and quite
> possibly cheaper as well.
>
> (I bet you are too stupid to take that advice
> though.)


No, libTARD moron, you're too stupid to understand when seconds count, the popo are minutes away. What a fucking dolt.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA VVWNH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Same old
> worn-out NRA bullshit all over again. What a
> pathetic but entirely unsurprising spectacle. The
> NRA lies more often than Trump, and you're to
> stupid to spot it in either case. As the result,
> you have no actual argument to put forward here at
> all. You are just another dismal gun-tard
> asshole. And yes, when I see an asshole, I call
> it an asshole. And you most definitely are one of
> those, no two ways about it.
>
> You know, if some contaminated batch of lettuce
> were deemed capable of doing the sorts of damage
> that we all know full well guns are certain to do,
> what do you think the reaction would be? How
> about the reaction from assholes? Would that be
> any different?
>
> Bottom Line: Guns make you (and everyone else)
> LESS safe, not MORE safe.


My suspicions were well founded. You're incapable of discussing anything like a civilized adult. You fail to allow for the possibility that someone might disagree with you in an intelligent manner. You're nothing but a typical liberal moron who has no concept of reality and lives in a dream world where he's programmed to dismiss anything that conflicts with the utopia your indoctrinators have programmed into you. Despite your assumed air of superiority and pseudointellectual snobbery, you're nothing but a 5th grader trying to act better than everyone else. No biggie, I can stoop to your level
just to show you I'mm better at it than you.

Listen up, libtard and listen up good. Sit the fuck down, asshole and shut the fuck up. All you can do is parrot the same old tired bullshit your DNC masters have indoctrinated you with. You have absolutely no mind of your own. You blindly take the bullshit they feed you and buy into it. You prove you earn the moniker LIBTARD every day. You're too fucking stupid, moronic and ignorant to think for yourself.

Pay attention, shit for brains, we have the right to keep arms and we're not giving them up because some buttfuck liberals who think they're smarter than we are say we have to. It's in the fucking Constitution, buttream, a document you're not familiar with, because your indoctrinators don't want you to know you have any rights besides what they tell you you have. Just because you want someone to give you your opinion, doesn't mean everybody does.

When I see a mindless automaton buttream, I call it one. And you're definitely one of those.


BOTTOM LINE: Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is their right and makes them safer against armed, violent criminals. Guns in the hands of armed, violent criminals, where asswipe liberals like you want to leave them, make people less safe, not more safe.


Take your stupid ass bullshit somewhere else, buttwipe. Nobody with any brains is interested. What a fucking moron.

"You're incapable of discussing anything like a civilized adult"

and then...wow.

Talk about the pot and the kettle.

"mindless automaton buttream"...is that from Beavis and Butthead?

Holy Cow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "You're incapable of discussing anything like a
> civilized adult"
>
> and then...wow.
>
> Talk about the pot and the kettle.


Read the post. I made it clear I was stooping to his level.

man o man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "mindless automaton buttream"...is that from
> Beavis and Butthead?


Since he's at 5th grade level & Beavis & Butthead are what, sophomore in HS level? That makes it above his level.


I've never seen more than 5 or so minutes of Beavis & Butthead. I don't watch Mindless TV.

VVWNH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My suspicions were well founded. You're incapable
> of discussing anything like a civilized adult.

I certainly could if there were such a thing as another civilized adult about.

> No biggie, I can stoop to your level just to show
you I'mm better at it than you.

LOL! It isn't 'stoOping" that you'd be needing to do in order to reach my level. I am far more intelligent than you, and have vastly more relevant education and experience.

> Pay attention, shit for brains, we have the right
> to keep arms and we're not giving them up because
> some buttfuck liberals who think they're smarter
> than we are say we have to.

I'm just reminding you here of the badly flawed nature of your claims. There was no 'individual right' until Scalia, The Judicial Activist, invented the idea out of whole cloth 200 years after the fact.

> It's in the fucking Constitution, buttream, a document
> you're not familiar with..

Oh, I know MUCH MORE about the Constitution and its history than you do. There is simply no question at all about that.

> BOTTOM LINE: Guns in the hands of law abiding
> citizens is their right and makes them safer
> against armed, violent criminals.

LOL! You 'law-abiding citizens' so regularly turn overnight into armed perpetrators of unconscionable massacres. How long before the next fatal flip-out, do you imagine? You have no actual clue. of course. No one does. We just can't tell which of the millions of possible candidates will be the next to explode on us. We can only hope that whoever it is doesn't have access to guns.

VVWNH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy Cow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "You're incapable of discussing anything like a
> > civilized adult"
> >
> > and then...wow.
> >
> > Talk about the pot and the kettle.
>
>
> Read the post. I made it clear I was stooping to
> his level.

I did read the post, my friend.

You went well below "his" level.

Way, way below.

Just what is a "buttream" anyway?

unhunh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VVWNH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Holy Cow Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > "You're incapable of discussing anything like
> a
> > > civilized adult"
> > >
> > > and then...wow.
> > >
> > > Talk about the pot and the kettle.
> >
> >
> > Read the post. I made it clear I was stooping
> to
> > his level.
>
> I did read the post, my friend.
>
> You went well below "his" level.
>
> Way, way below.
>
> Just what is a "buttream" anyway?


Read some more of his posts. It's at about the 5th grade level where he is.

Docs good/NRA bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VVWNH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> >
>
> I certainly could if there were such a thing as
> another civilized adult about.


You're anything but a civilized adult. You're a nasty little brat with the emotional & mental maturity of a 5th grader. The definition of civilized adult isn't somebody who marches in lockstep with your nasty, stupid ass.





>
> >
>
>
>
> LOL! It isn't 'stoOping" that you'd be needing to
> do in order to reach my level. I am far more
> intelligent than you, and have vastly more
> relevant education and experience.
>


When you've proved you have the emotional maturity of a 5th grader with your profanity and insult laced tirades, I am, in fact stooping to your level. Nobody here with any brains believes your bullshit about all of your education and experience. You're a nothing, a zero and mindless.


> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> I'm just reminding you here of the badly flawed
> nature of your claims. There was no 'individual
> right' until Scalia, The Judicial Activist,
> invented the idea out of whole cloth 200 years
> after the fact.



You have no basis to say that, given how it was practiced for years. All that what you claim Scalia did was have the court confirm what was practiced for years. He got 4 other justices to agree with him, so that means it's an individual right. The Court's on our side. As your DNC masters have programmed you to say: "It's the LAW!".


>
> >
>
> >
>
> Oh, I know MUCH MORE about the Constitution and
> its history than you do. There is simply no
> question at all about that.


There's every question in the world about it. You've given enough demonstration here of your ignorance of it.






>
> >
> >
> >
>
> LOL! You 'law-abiding citizens' so regularly turn
> overnight into armed perpetrators of
> unconscionable massacres. How long before the
> next fatal flip-out, do you imagine? You have no
> actual clue. of course. No one does. We just
> can't tell which of the millions of possible
> candidates will be the next to explode on us. We
> can only hope that whoever it is doesn't have
> access to guns.


Lousy try at deflection. You and your kind can come up with nothing that keeps guns away from criminals. You only keep coming up with the same bullshit you've been pushing for 50 years. It didn't keep guns away from violent criminals then, it still doesn't & it never will. You know, one definition of insanity only a dumb fuck like you would disagree with is you keep doing the same thing over & over & expect different results. You & your kind keeps pushing the same ineffective gun control bullshit that hasn't worked in the 50 yrs it's been out there and you keep expecting it's going to end gun violence even though it never has.


DIPSO FACTO; QED: liberal dullards like you are insane.


Oh, sorry for being redundant; I said liberal "dullards".

You’d have been better off in saying nothing at all. You all aid and abet in these massacres, whether wittingly or not.

I call them ‘facilitators’. The gun-nuts routinely pave the way to slaughter.

Guilty... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You’d have been better off in saying nothing at
> all. You all aid and abet in these massacres,
> whether wittingly or not.

I agree, these anti-gun zealots can’t wait for the next tragedy to push their ultimate agenda of removing power from the people. Sad really.

Power from the people...just what do you envision?

Shooting it out with government? Taking it over via an armed coup?

Do you think your gun, and, your buddies gun, is the only thing stopping them, if in fact they wanted to do whatever they wanted to do to you?

What are you, a doomsday prepper?

Guilty... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You’d have been better off in saying nothing at
> all. You all aid and abet in these massacres,
> whether wittingly or not.


BS. That's just your DNC programming talking, NPC.

whatchoooo talkin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Power from the people...just what do you
> envision?
>
> Shooting it out with government? Taking it over
> via an armed coup?
>
> Do you think your gun, and, your buddies gun, is
> the only thing stopping them, if in fact they
> wanted to do whatever they wanted to do to you?
>
> What are you, a doomsday prepper?


wouldn't be the 1st time it happened.

Ask those people in Waco how it worked out for them being armed to the teeth.

They were like, we got food and guns to last us...well, until the government rolls in tanks and firebombs us.

whatchoooo talkin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Power from the people...just what do you
> envision?
>
> Shooting it out with government? Taking it over
> via an armed coup?
>
> Do you think your gun, and, your buddies gun, is
> the only thing stopping them, if in fact they
> wanted to do whatever they wanted to do to you?
>
> What are you, a doomsday prepper?

According to the OP from earlier:


> For no valid reason at all, there are nearly ten
> times your quaint estimate of 33 million guns in
> this country, and those who foolishly choose to
> keep those guns in the home do indeed drop out of
> the population at unnecessarily accelerated rates.

I’d say 330 million gun sounds like an adequate number to me ... I like the odds. Btw, good luck getting the military involved in firing on citizens too. Guns = Power and that’s precisely why the left would like to remove them from the citizens.

Indicator of BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS. That's just your DNC programming talking NPC.

But you do look good with a boot up your ass.

What a turd... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indicator of BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS. That's just your DNC programming talking
> NPC.
>
> But you do look good with a boot up your ass.


^^^Obvious troll is obvious.

0 points for that childish bit, loser.

Boomer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whatchoooo talkin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Power from the people...just what do you
> > envision?
> >
> > Shooting it out with government? Taking it over
> > via an armed coup?
> >
> > Do you think your gun, and, your buddies gun,
> is
> > the only thing stopping them, if in fact they
> > wanted to do whatever they wanted to do to you?
> >
> > What are you, a doomsday prepper?
>
> According to the OP from earlier:
>
>
> > For no valid reason at all, there are nearly
> ten
> > times your quaint estimate of 33 million guns
> in
> > this country, and those who foolishly choose to
> > keep those guns in the home do indeed drop out
> of
> > the population at unnecessarily accelerated
> rates.
>
> I’d say 330 million gun sounds like an adequate
> number to me ... I like the odds. Btw, good luck
> getting the military involved in firing on
> citizens too. Guns = Power and that’s precisely
> why the left would like to remove them from the
> citizens.


Well, why don't you stop talking about it, then?

What are you gonna do, round up your buddies and attack?

Overthrow the government? Set the record straight?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah.

Jeezus what a tool.

What a turd... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a 0 pointy headeds for that childish bit, loser


FIFY

What a turd... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 0 points for that childish bit, loser.


Obvious troll is obvious, obviously.

What a turd... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indicator of BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS. That's just your DNC programming talking
> NPC.
>
> But youI do look and feel good with a bbcoot up myour ass.



FIFY

silly wabbit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I NEED the BBC oh so bad

silly wabbit Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> Boomer Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> > whatchoooo talkin Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> > > Power from the people...just what do you envision?
> > >
> > > Shooting it out with government? Taking it over
> > > via an armed coup?
> > >
> > > Do you think your gun, and, your buddies gun,is
> > > the only thing stopping them, if in fact they
> > > wanted to do whatever they wanted to do to you?
> > >
> > > What are you, a doomsday prepper?
> >
> > According to the OP from earlier:
> >
> >
> > > For no valid reason at all, there are nearly ten
> > > times your quaint estimate of 33 million guns in
> > > this country, and those who foolishly choose to
> > > keep those guns in the home do indeed drop out of
> > > the population at unnecessarily accelerated rates.
> >
> > I’d say 330 million gun sounds like an adequate
> > number to me ... I like the odds. Btw, good luck
> > getting the military involved in firing on
> > citizens too. Guns = Power and that’s precisely
> > why the left would like to remove them from the
> > citizens.
>
>
> Well, why don't you stop talking about it, then?
>
> What are you gonna do, round up your buddies and attack?
>
> Overthrow the government? Set the record straight?
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah.
>
> Jeezus what a tool.


Gun nuts are driven by anger, fear, & anxiety.

Reality is very different-
.
Attachments:

Laughing at FIFY once more. What an incapacitous stooge that vagrant is!

There he is again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been made into a Laughingstock at by FIFY once more. What an incapacitous
> stooge I amthat and a vagrant, too is!


FIFY

FIXER OF |T FOR YOU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There he is again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've been made into a
> Laughingstock at by FIFY once
> more. What an incapacitous
> > stooge I amthat and a
> vagrant, too is!
>
>
> FIFY


FIFY is a loser asshole with no real ideas...

Everyone knows you suck, FIFY

FIFY is stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FIXER OF |T FOR YOU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There he is again Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I've been made into a
> > Laughingstock at by FIFY
> once
> > more. What an incapacitous
> > > stooge I amthat and a
> > vagrant, too is!
> >
> >
> > FIFY
>
>
> FIFY isI'm a loser asshole with no real ideas...
>
> Everyone knows you I suck, FIFY and I'm such a loser b/c I let you live in my head rent free


FIFY

silly wabbit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sns.
>
>
> Well, why don't you stop talking about it, then?
>
> What are you gonna do, round up your buddies and
> attack?
>
> Overthrow the government? Set the record
> straight?
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah.
>
> Jeezus what a tool.


^^^OFFICIAL DESIGNATION: Turd Burglar.

Such a worthless annoyance.