Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck Liberal Logic, fuck Curmudgon or cumguzziler
> whatever his name is, fuck the anonymous
> Republican trolls on here. Vote, that's what you
> need to do. 90 percent of you fellow Americans
> stand with you. You are voting for your rights to
> representation. The Republican politicians are
> protecting the gun lobby and don't give a fuck if
> every one of your fucking children gets shot in
> incidents like this.
>
> VOTE these fuckers out for good, they need a
> lesson in democracy.

Do you realize that I'm a Conservative Democrat? You know, the type that morons like you threw out of the party during the 90s? You have never added anything of value to this board. I have. End of story.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK THESE FILTHY FUCKIN DIRTY REPUBLICANS TROLLS
> ON HERE, DON'T BOTHER, VOTE, VOTE HARD, VOTE THEIR
> ASS'S OUT, VOTE EM OUT NOW, DO ALL YOU CAN AS A
> CITIZEN AND AS A VIRGINIAN, 90 PERCENT OF AMERICA
> STANDS UNITED.


90% of the few 'Morning Joe' viewers anyway. lmao

The Republican party filibustered a petty background checks reform bill supported by 90 percent of America, they didn't even let it proceed to the house for a vote. After the multiple gruesome shootings.

The Republican Party has now officially taken ownership and responsibility for all future incidents of mass murder that are certain to occur. Next time someone kills innocent people in this country, the Republican Party said yesterday, we don't care. We are indifferent and we will not affect the business of the gun industry to improve public safety.

These stupid fuckin Republicans don't know the burden they've placed themselves now. You want to fuck around for special interests in obstruction and filibuster legislation of devastated families in support of 90 percent of the nation.

A bare minimum of requiring background checks and gun shows an such. This was the minimum we could of done in response.

I can see something, I can sense something, I feel like. I feel people are getting really sick of the GOP. Can't wait until the next election. These fuckin Republicans are their own worst enemies and they will drag the country down unless the country forces them into reform. They can come back but right now politically they need a time out.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fuck Liberal Logic, fuck Curmudgon or
> cumguzziler
> > whatever his name is, fuck the anonymous
> > Republican trolls on here. Vote, that's what
> you
> > need to do. 90 percent of you fellow Americans
> > stand with you. You are voting for your rights
> to
> > representation. The Republican politicians are
> > protecting the gun lobby and don't give a fuck
> if
> > every one of your fucking children gets shot in
> > incidents like this.
> >
> > VOTE these fuckers out for good, they need a
> > lesson in democracy.
>
> Do you realize that I'm a Conservative Democrat?
> You know, the type that morons like you threw out
> of the party during the 90s? You have never added
> anything of value to this board. I have. End of
> story.

I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot that needs to practice shutting his fucking face more often.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot that
> needs to practice shutting his fucking face more
> often.


^ Yet another 'tolerant' Progressive.

lulz

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot that
> needs to practice shutting his fucking face more
> often.

YOU KNOW FUCKING NOTHING. You have talking points. Say something valuable, dumb fuck. Not some talking point. Show me evidence. Show me evidence of an ACTUAL gun show loophole. Tell me that 60% of all gun violence isn't committed by black males between 18-35.

You're ignorant and dangerous. Thank God people like you tend to pontificate but not vote.

lulz@u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot
> that
> > needs to practice shutting his fucking face
> more
> > often.
>
>
> ^ Yet another 'tolerant' Progressive.
>
> lulz

When you can't answer with knowledge, attack the other person.

C'mere GerryTard, I'll tell you a little secret that you're too fucking stooopid to figure out for yourself...

Reid didn't want it to pass. If he did he could have handled the voting differently. Like the two-faced slimeball politician that he is, he wants to be able to look like he's supporting it now that it's front and center and to be able to later go back to voters in NV and say that he voted no. Obama and the rest of the Dems don't really want it to pass either. Passing it hurts them in close races. Not passing it lets them keep it as a talking point for 2014. They don't really care about gun control, all they care about is politics.

Look at these motherfuckers, 90 percent of republicans voted against 90 percent of the American people and he blames Harry fuckin bitch Reid.. I just want to know one thing. When will you fuckin people take responsibility for something?

I mean, the whole entire fucking existence of the Republican party in conflict with the economic interests of the vast middle class for the elite and is the idea that people "taking responsibility" is what benefits society most therefore they should be left out with no government help.

"Take responsibility" is the central theme of this despicable Darwinistic ideology. It's what this piece of shit party is solely based on.

So, you go around telling everyone to take responsibility and bail out the billionaires with corporate welfare.

When will you fucking Republicans take some of you own advice? When will you take some responsibility for your politics?

Is the irony here that the only way the party of "take responsibility economically" can function is if they never "take responsibility" politically? Basically lying is necessary and avoiding accountability.

Obama lied about Mitt Romney in 2012.

Lied about his taxes.

Lied about offshore bank accounts.

Lied about Bain Capital closing a factory and causing a woman to die of cancer.

And now he is accusing the NRA of lying?
Attachments:

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama lied about Mitt Romney in 2012.
>
> Lied about his taxes.
>
> Lied about offshore bank accounts.
>
> Lied about Bain Capital closing a factory and
> causing a woman to die of cancer.
>
> And now he is accusing the NRA of lying?

I am WashingtonLocian..

Always have been, always will be.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am WashingtonLocian..
>
> Always have been, always will be.

LEARN TO READ YOU DOUCHE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The amendment, offered by Republican Pat Toomey of
> Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West
> Virginia, got 54 votes, short of the 60 required.
> Forty-six senators voted against it.
>
> Your lies will get your people fired in 2014. So
> please, keep lying, keep obfuscating you little
> douches. Pretend like the democrats failed america
> on this when 90%, 90 fucking percent, of the
> republicans voted against this and 90% of
> democrats voted for it.
>
> KEEP YOUR SPIN LYING GOING YOU WHORE
>
> Just like how the sequester was Obama, when
> Boehner got 99% of what he wanted.
>
> YOU FUCKING LYING CUNTS ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY.
> GET THE FUCK OUT YOU WHORES, or atleast stop lying
> to people. If you cant win on the merits of your
> argument then you LOSE. THATS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.
> YOU ARE TURNING OUR COUNTRY INTO A FUCKING
> OLIGARCHY CONTROLLED BY MONEY YOU DOUCHES
Attachments:

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LEARN TO READ YOU DOUCHE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The amendment, offered by Republican Pat Toomey
> of
> > Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West
> > Virginia, got 54 votes, short of the 60
> required.
> > Forty-six senators voted against it.
> >
> > Your lies will get your people fired in 2014.
> So
> > please, keep lying, keep obfuscating you little
> > douches. Pretend like the democrats failed
> america
> > on this when 90%, 90 fucking percent, of the
> > republicans voted against this and 90% of
> > democrats voted for it.
> >
> > KEEP YOUR SPIN LYING GOING YOU WHORE
> >
> > Just like how the sequester was Obama, when
> > Boehner got 99% of what he wanted.
> >
> > YOU FUCKING LYING CUNTS ARE RUINING OUR
> COUNTRY.
> > GET THE FUCK OUT YOU WHORES, or atleast stop
> lying
> > to people. If you cant win on the merits of
> your
> > argument then you LOSE. THATS HOW DEMOCRACY
> WORKS.
> > YOU ARE TURNING OUR COUNTRY INTO A FUCKING
> > OLIGARCHY CONTROLLED BY MONEY YOU DOUCHES

Yes celebrate in the fact that you are selling out future generations to the controls of 20 or so CEOs sitting in a room wringing their hands that people are stupid enough in the south to keep voting these bozos in.

CELEBRATE! WOOOO! YOU WON!!!!

How'd that work for you in 2012? Cant wait for 2014. Talk about sour grapes haha

Shame.
Attachments:

And Big Business Lobbies always win against the little guy or common sense.


There were moments of courage on the Senate floor Wednesday. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), seriously ill with cancer, had traveled to Washington to cast his vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave an uncharacteristically moving speech explaining why he was reversing his position and would vote for a ban on military-style assault rifles (the proposal failed, 40 to 60). Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defied most in his party to speak, and vote, in favor of the background-check measure.

Bravest of all were Manchin and Toomey, both risking their “A” ratings from the NRA to follow their consciences. “This isn’t gun control, this is common sense,” Toomey told his colleagues in the closing minutes of Wednesday’s debate.

Just last week, lobbying efforts by Newtown families helped beat back a Republican filibuster

DrLou1
9:32 AM EDT
Americans need to seriously consider what just happened in the Senate because it was simultaneously a precedent and a tragedy.

Despite the FACT that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported what actually were rather minimal changes in gun registration, the Senate refused to support the legislation because all they were able to see was the next election fund raising cycle. Even though it actually WON...54 - 46...it still lost due to GOP manipulation of existing rules.

We agreed to go to war with Britain in 1812 by less of a margin. The Founding Fathers are spinning and the Senate set a record today for cowardice....

And for those confused, this was NOT an example of democracy but horrifying demagoguery and the exact factionalism so feared by the Founding Fathers from Washington to Hamilton. To call today’s vote ‘democracy’ is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the American system of governance which is embarrassing and an exact example of the willful ignorance that has done so well by the GOP.

The reasons given for voting against this legislation by key GOP members were lies…not exaggerations but outright lies.

For those clearly confused by it all, the U.S. is not a true democracy but a Republic whereby elected representatives of all Americans are expected to follow what their electorate expects. And our Republic, per the original framers, was designed EXACTLY so that the 'tyranny of the minority would not overwhelm the majority.'

In this instance, it wasn't even a 'minority' of Americans but an even smaller minority of wealthy special interests. What happened yesterday in the Senate would have horrified Hamilton and Madison.

That the Senate has become little more than another factionalized special interest group should horrify ALL Americans. And for those whose only focus is the perception that Obama 'lost,' you are pathetic and wrong.

America lost....not Obama and this was a spit in the face of America.

Fuck these Republicans, let them dig their own hole. Why do you want to stop them? They just got trounced, why? Because the American people were too smart to get fooled by their obstruction. So what do they do? They double down and obstruct on issues with 90% support from the American public. Unless they are taught a harsh lesson at the polls, this will continue. Oh man, I see it commin. Watch them celebrate there demise today and take comfort in knowing that a biblical tsunami awaits them.

Obama said we can't do nothing. There wasn't anything in the compromise bill that would have prevented what happened at Newtown, because it doesn't address the root causes of violence. When you do something in response to an event, and that "something" would not have prevented the event, that is the same as doing "nothing". If you have back pain and someone hands you a bandaid, it doesn't help. Same thing.

So basically you are complaining that nothing was done, and had something been done it still would have effectively been nothing.

Meanwhile those who fail background checks are not being prosecuted. Blame government for not doing as much as they legally can now, not that they didn't pile more crap they wouldn't enforce on the existing crap heap.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck these Republicans, let them dig their own
> hole. Why do you want to stop them? They just
> got trounced, why? Because the American people
> were too smart to get fooled by their obstruction.

Most of them are probably doing what their constituents want. The senators aren't representing the citizens of the Unites States collectively; they are representing the voters of their state. My guess is that a Democratic senator from some plains state is probably at greater risk for voting in favor of this than a Republican senator from South Carolina is for voting against it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK THESE FILTHY FUCKIN DIRTY REPUBLICANS TROLLS
> ON HERE, DON'T BOTHER, VOTE, VOTE HARD, VOTE THEIR
> ASS'S OUT, VOTE EM OUT NOW, DO ALL YOU CAN AS A
> CITIZEN AND AS A VIRGINIAN, 90 PERCENT OF AMERICA
> STANDS UNITED.
Attachments:

It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun show and internet loopholes closed.

The fact that private sellers and "partial sellers" can sell guns with out background checks on the internet and at gun shows it crap!

It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders and gun stores.

Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> show and internet loopholes closed.
>
> The fact that private sellers and "partial
> sellers" can sell guns with out background checks
> on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
>
> It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders and
> gun stores.


If you really want just that part closed then tell the dems to just put a bill with that up and not let Feinstein tack on her absurd bans.

Or better yet set up a way where through a gun store the citizens could run a back ground check for the sale and still sell to each other not being at the mercy of the stores trade prices.

If the dems would do something like that it would pass, but they dont. They start with something small and by the time its done its a ban on multiple things that they try and sneak through acting like all it did was backgrounds

Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> show and internet loopholes closed.

Every gun I have purchased online and at a gun show required a background check.

> The fact that private sellers and "partial
> sellers" can sell guns with out background checks
> on the internet and at gun shows it crap!

Why?

> It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders and
> gun stores.

How so?

@jerrytard, you are one to talk about democracy. obama is a socialist and is trying to bypass all democracy to achieve his agenda. look at the health care bill. most americans didnt want it, but he got it done. where was the democracy in that. your just another democrat fucktard that doesnt get how democracy works. hope you enjoy your kool-aid, because you drank it.

u idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @jerrytard, you are one to talk about democracy.
> obama is a socialist and is trying to bypass all
> democracy to achieve his agenda. look at the
> health care bill. most americans didnt want it,
> but he got it done. where was the democracy in
> that. your just another democrat fucktard that
> doesnt get how democracy works. hope you enjoy
> your kool-aid, because you drank it.


Ignore gerrytroll. He's no-doubt ferfux. He is irrational and can not be reasoned with.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> > show and internet loopholes closed.
> >
> > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> checks
> > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
> >
> > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> and
> > gun stores.
>
>
> If you really want just that part closed then tell
> the dems to just put a bill with that up and not
> let Feinstein tack on her absurd bans.
>
> Or better yet set up a way where through a gun
> store the citizens could run a back ground check
> for the sale and still sell to each other not
> being at the mercy of the stores trade prices.
>
> If the dems would do something like that it would
> pass, but they dont. They start with something
> small and by the time its done its a ban on
> multiple things that they try and sneak through
> acting like all it did was backgrounds

Hey moron. They had separate votes you piece of trash.

The feinstein bill failed with 65 votes against.

So please tell me conservative logic, tell me you fucking worthless maggot what has to happen to GET A FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECK DONE YOU DOUCHE. HOW MUCH MORE COMPROMISE DO YOU FASCIST FUCKS NEED

Douche

Whatever, see you in 2014. Everyone to their corners, government will be dysfunctional until a few more of your pals lose their seats. Thats how you want to play, then bring it on fuck faces, a war of attrition is won by the populous movement. You think you have that douches with your bible thumping, your gay bashing, your brown person hating, your retarded economic ideas that ended up in the worst economy since the depression?

Good luck, see you in 2014

You liberal sheep are so brainwashed by the lamestream media there is no such thing as a gun show or internet loophole go try for yourelf this was a moot issue from the beginning yet obummer still wants to parade the newtown families around as pawns to tear at the heartstrings of you liberals now its time for him and his buddies in hollywood to continue the whining while continually portraying violent characters and glorifying violence lol! Gotta love watching obama and biden crying on tv get used to it liberals you elected a grown baby thats why north korea is making us look like pussies and china is taking over!!
Attachments:

good luck fucks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want
> gun
> > > show and internet loopholes closed.
> > >
> > > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> > checks
> > > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
> > >
> > > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> > and
> > > gun stores.
> >
> >
> > If you really want just that part closed then
> tell
> > the dems to just put a bill with that up and
> not
> > let Feinstein tack on her absurd bans.
> >
> > Or better yet set up a way where through a gun
> > store the citizens could run a back ground
> check
> > for the sale and still sell to each other not
> > being at the mercy of the stores trade prices.
>
> >
> > If the dems would do something like that it
> would
> > pass, but they dont. They start with something
> > small and by the time its done its a ban on
> > multiple things that they try and sneak through
> > acting like all it did was backgrounds
>
> Hey moron. They had separate votes you piece of
> trash.
>
> The feinstein bill failed with 65 votes against.
>
> So please tell me conservative logic, tell me you
> fucking worthless maggot what has to happen to GET
> A FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECK DONE YOU DOUCHE. HOW
> MUCH MORE COMPROMISE DO YOU FASCIST FUCKS NEED
>
> Douche
>
> Whatever, see you in 2014. Everyone to their
> corners, government will be dysfunctional until a
> few more of your pals lose their seats. Thats how
> you want to play, then bring it on fuck faces, a
> war of attrition is won by the populous movement.
> You think you have that douches with your bible
> thumping, your gay bashing, your brown person
> hating, your retarded economic ideas that ended up
> in the worst economy since the depression?
>
> Good luck, see you in 2014


WOW. You are REALLY mad. This is hilarious. You are so butthurt. LoLz

The sad thing is, you still dont get it. Your fucking yourselves over by being the party of crotchity old white men. You are still attacking the invisible obama in the chair and loving it.

You are like the guys at the party that think everyone is cracking up at the jokes you are telling while drunk, when its really that they are making fun of how you smell like shit cause you crapped yourself and are a loser.

Its chess dumb nuts, enjoy another loss coming real soon.

Just do me a favor, go around telling everyone your opinions on politics and how you support GOP members because they also agree with you.

Troll Blaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sad thing is, you still dont get it. Your
> fucking yourselves over by being the party of
> crotchity old white men. You are still attacking
> the invisible obama in the chair and loving it.
>
> You are like the guys at the party that think
> everyone is cracking up at the jokes you are
> telling while drunk, when its really that they are
> making fun of how you smell like shit cause you
> crapped yourself and are a loser.
>
> Its chess dumb nuts, enjoy another loss coming
> real soon.
>
> Just do me a favor, go around telling everyone
> your opinions on politics and how you support GOP
> members because they also agree with you.
Attachments:

not so much.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> > show and internet loopholes closed.
>
> Every gun I have purchased online and at a gun
> show required a background check.
>
> > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> checks
> > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
>
> Why?
>
> > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> and
> > gun stores.
>
> How so?

If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller, yes, they have to a background check.

However if you buy from a private seller the seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show and sell guns with no background checks.

A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon but doesn't have to do any background check. I simple "Your not a felon right or anything like that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.

The new gun law would of closed that hole.

Accuratley enforce the current laws first.
Fix the problem from within.

NRA Helps Felons Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not so much.... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want
> gun
> > > show and internet loopholes closed.
> >
> > Every gun I have purchased online and at a gun
> > show required a background check.
> >
> > > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> > checks
> > > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> > and
> > > gun stores.
> >
> > How so?
>
> If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller,
> yes, they have to a background check.
>
> However if you buy from a private seller the
> seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any
> "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show
> and sell guns with no background checks.
>
> A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon
> but doesn't have to do any background check. I
> simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.
>
> The new gun law would of closed that hole.


Great. You told me everything I knew before you typed your message. But you still didn't say how it was a slap in the face to gun holders (whatever a gun holder is) and gun stores or why it was crap.

I get it, you're not too bright and are parroting talking points you've heard before. Try thinking for yourself.

not so much...... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > If you buy from a Federally licensed gun
> seller,
> > yes, they have to a background check.
> >
> > However if you buy from a private seller the
> > seller doesn't have to do a background check.
> Any
> > "private seller" can setup a table at a gun
> show
> > and sell guns with no background checks.
> >
> > A private seller is not suppose to sell to a
> felon
> > but doesn't have to do any background check.
> I
> > simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> > that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.
> >
> > The new gun law would of closed that
> hole.
>
>
> Great. You told me everything I knew before you
> typed your message. But you still didn't say how
> it was a slap in the face to gun holders (whatever
> a gun holder is) and gun stores or why it was
> crap.
>
> I get it, you're not too bright and are parroting
> talking points you've heard before. Try thinking
> for yourself.

It hurts gun store sales because the absence of the law gives an advantage to "private sellers." If I need a gun where's the easiest place to buy it and cheap?

A gun show or private seller because they don't have the overhead of background checks.

If I'm a felon or have a mental illness where I'm I going to buy a gun? A gun show or the internet from a private seller.

How does it hurt legal gun owners?

The new law would stopped more felons and mentally ill from getting guns at guns shows and off the internet with no background checks.

Less guns in the hands of felons and mental ill people makes gun owners look more respectable.

With the exception of the NRA, do want felons and mentally ill people owning guns???

I know I don't!!!!

NRA Helps Felons Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller,
> yes, they have to a background check.
>
> However if you buy from a private seller the
> seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any
> "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show
> and sell guns with no background checks.

No they cant. Theyre the guys walking around with guns on their backs, few and far between. Not even 1 percent of sales at those sales and more realistically not even half a percent.

> A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon
> but doesn't have to do any background check. I
> simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.

No actually if they sell to someone who wasnt supposed to have it and they commit a crime with it the seller is legally responsible.

What generally happens is the seller will ask to see your concealed carry as a way to prove youve past a background check.

Its always funny hearing what people think happens at gun shows from people who have never bought a gun or been to one.

> The new gun law would of closed that hole.

Its not a a loop hole and it the amount of private sales are greatly exaggerated

Every time the Left tries to blame you for gun violence in America, remember this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Djx1OlpPFk

Who's really to blame? White conservative NRA members? Or the Left's "Diversity is Strength" schemes?

The sad thing is, you still dont get it. Your fucking yourselves over by being the party of crotchity old white men. You are still attacking the invisible obama in the chair and loving it.

You are like the guys at the party that think everyone is cracking up at the jokes you are telling while drunk, when its really that they are making fun of how you smell like shit cause you crapped yourself and are a loser.

Its chess dumb nuts, enjoy another loss coming real soon.

Just do me a favor, go around telling everyone your opinions on politics and how you support GOP members because they also agree with you.

l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Americans need to seriously consider what just
> happened in the Senate because it was
> simultaneously a precedent and a tragedy.

Not a tragedy nor a precedent. The Senate is not beholden to the American public at large, it is beholden to the state. Also, we have something called elections in this country. Unfortunately, money plays a big role. This is not the first (nor will it be the last) time that something the public wants has been defeated in the Senate. 100% of Americans want a budget. Ryan's budget gets defeated in the Senate every year. The Democratic budget gets defeated in the House every year.
> Despite the FACT that an overwhelming majority of
> Americans supported what actually were rather
> minimal changes in gun registration, the Senate
> refused to support the legislation because all
> they were able to see was the next election fund
> raising cycle. Even though it actually WON...54 -
> 46...it still lost due to GOP manipulation of
> existing rules.

The existing rules clearly state that you need 3/5ths of all Senators sworn and voting to pass a bill. If a motion to make it a 3/5ths bill is not objected to, it's the way the Senate works. Just because something "wins" doesn't mean it becomes law. This is basic government, people. You need a "super-majority" in order to do anything. There was no GOP manipulation, because having a 51-49 vote in the Senate (or a 51-50 vote, in the event of a tie) doesn't actually do anything.

> And for those confused, this was NOT an example of
> democracy but horrifying demagoguery and the exact
> factionalism so feared by the Founding Fathers
> from Washington to Hamilton. To call today’s
> vote ‘democracy’ is to demonstrate a lack of
> understanding of the American system of governance
> which is embarrassing and an exact example of the
> willful ignorance that has done so well by the
> GOP.

It's democracy in the way that the American people have made it. We make everything dependent on money these days. You have chosen this, America. Good men are forced to do terrible things because they need money to be re-elected. It's the way our system works, and personally, it sickens me.

> The reasons given for voting against this
> legislation by key GOP members were lies…not
> exaggerations but outright lies.

Ideological reasons are never outright lies.

> For those clearly confused by it all, the U.S. is
> not a true democracy but a Republic whereby
> elected representatives of all Americans are
> expected to follow what their electorate expects.
> And our Republic, per the original framers, was
> designed EXACTLY so that the 'tyranny of the
> minority would not overwhelm the majority.'

No, you have it backwards. The tyranny of the MAJORITY is safeguarded against. This is why we have things like the filibuster and the super-majority in the Senate. It's why the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures. The minority can be overruled, it just takes a large percentage of the majority to do it.

> That the Senate has become little more than
> another factionalized special interest group
> should horrify ALL Americans. And for those whose
> only focus is the perception that Obama 'lost,'
> you are pathetic and wrong.

All politics have devolved into factions. Yes, the Founding Fathers would be appalled, but it's the way all countries work. You're going to have some people against things and some people for them. Factionalization is just another fact of politics, regardless of what the Framers intended.

> America lost....not Obama and this was a spit in
> the face of America.

America lost in that it had the majority defeated by money. I believe that the background checks were fine. I opposed all of the other measures. If only the background checks had gone through, it would have been fine.

I don't deny that people's consciences shouldn't be clean. Regardless, having the background checks wouldn't stop someone like Adam Lanza. His mother purchased the weapons, not him. A lot of the "background check" argument was political posturing as well. The gun show loophole is a false dichotomy. So is the online loophole. You have to pass a background check to own a gun. Rather than institute draconian measures, the best way to deal with the situation is threefold: 1. Update the database in states; 2. Make the database universal; 3. Limit the amount of ammunition someone can have. Nobody needs 10,000 rounds if he/she is just hunting, collecting, or shooting for pleasure.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody needs 10,000
> rounds if he/she is just hunting, collecting, or
> shooting for pleasure.

Ammunition has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Its cheaper to buy in bulk and stock pile so you dont even up paying absurd prices when things like this happen and it tries to get banned.

Either you should be allowed to own a gun or you shouldnt. A law abiding person wont kill people even if you give them a 50 cal fully auto vehicle mounted machine gun with unlimited ammo. A murderer will kill people if all they have is a hand gun with a single clip.

A ammo limit would be nothing more than an extension of the fienstein attempted bans. Not needing something is never an argument to take someone away from people. People dont really need 4 cars, or a large house, or luxury items, all you really need is a basic amount of food and water to survive. That doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to get other things because you dont need them

> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Nobody needs 10,000
> rounds if he/she is just hunting, collecting, or
> shooting for pleasure.

Okay, I will bite. How many rounds does someone need it they are just hunting, collecting or shooting for pleasure?

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ammunition has absolutely nothing to do with
> anything. Its cheaper to buy in bulk and stock
> pile so you dont even up paying absurd prices when
> things like this happen and it tries to get
> banned.

So it's cheaper. Who cares?

> Either you should be allowed to own a gun or you
> shouldnt. A law abiding person wont kill people
> even if you give them a 50 cal fully auto vehicle
> mounted machine gun with unlimited ammo. A
> murderer will kill people if all they have is a
> hand gun with a single clip.

I disagree, the government can (and should) impose reasonable limits on what you can and cannot own. It's not a matter of "are you law abiding or not?" It's more a matter of how safe it is, which does have a law abiding factor. I think some of these people are emboldened by the fact they have a ridiculous amount of ammunition.

> A ammo limit would be nothing more than an
> extension of the fienstein attempted bans. Not
> needing something is never an argument to take
> someone away from people. People dont really need
> 4 cars, or a large house, or luxury items, all you
> really need is a basic amount of food and water to
> survive. That doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to
> get other things because you dont need them

Not really, an ammo limit would fall more under a reasonable restriction. The Feinstein bans were completely unreasonable and unconstitutional. You cannot prevent people from owning a LEGAL semi-automatic rifle. You can ban people from owning a machine gun, a RPG, or unseemly amounts of ammunition. The issue with the 2nd Amendment is the "well-regulated militia" part. What constitutes a well-regulated militia?

All rights have limits, and you can be limited as to what you can possess and how much you can possess.

Oy vey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I will bite. How many rounds does someone
> need it they are just hunting, collecting or
> shooting for pleasure?

It depends on how frequently you do any of those things. Collectors don't frequently fire collectible guns because it decreases the value.

I would say that 5,000 rounds is a reasonable threshold.

Libtards are trying to redfine gun ownership to mean "hunting" and "collecting" and "target shooting".

Can they imagine a world where people need to protect themselves with guns?

That the public protection like the police are not the be all end all?

I am scared of guns we should ban them it makes my pussy hurt. Also airplanes they kill people and i dont like them so no one else should ride them either. Allah akbar

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oy vey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Okay, I will bite. How many rounds does
> someone
> > need it they are just hunting, collecting or
> > shooting for pleasure?
>
> It depends on how frequently you do any of those
> things. Collectors don't frequently fire
> collectible guns because it decreases the value.
>
> I would say that 5,000 rounds is a reasonable
> threshold.


So, at a practical level, what do you think that your proposed 5,000 round limit accomplishes? What's the objective?

Beyond just limiting what people can have because you think that it's reasonable.

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

> So it's cheaper. Who cares?

People buying it. Why would you pay more for something than you dont have too. If your at the store and two items are the exact same sitting next to each other are you going to put the one that costs more in your cart?


> I disagree, the government can (and should) impose
> reasonable limits on what you can and cannot own.
> It's not a matter of "are you law abiding or not?"
> It's more a matter of how safe it is, which does
> have a law abiding factor. I think some of these
> people are emboldened by the fact they have a
> ridiculous amount of ammunition.

You restrict a right on the fact that you think something. Reasonable restrictions means there has to be a clear and present danger from allowing people to have it.

There is absolutely zero proof that the amount of rounds correlates to any increased danger or a danger at all. Having 10000 rounds doesnt make those rounds any more dangerous than if you only had 100.

> > A ammo limit would be nothing more than an
> > extension of the fienstein attempted bans. Not
> > needing something is never an argument to take
> > someone away from people. People dont really
> need
> > 4 cars, or a large house, or luxury items, all
> you

> Not really, an ammo limit would fall more under a
> reasonable restriction. The Feinstein bans were
> completely unreasonable and unconstitutional. You
> cannot prevent people from owning a LEGAL
> semi-automatic rifle. You can ban people from
> owning a machine gun, a RPG, or unseemly amounts
> of ammunition. The issue with the 2nd Amendment is
> the "well-regulated militia" part. What
> constitutes a well-regulated militia?

No it wouldnt theres nothing reasonable about restricting ammunition. Thats a de facto gun ban.

Theres no difference between the idea of saying you can only have 100 rounds and saying you cant have a gun, both are limiting access.

The ONLY way you can justify any sort of limit or restriction is to prove without a doubt that there is an increased danger and such a limit would remove that danger.

That proof without a doubt does not exist for ammo because its just simply not true. The machine gun ban was stupid as well, an RPG ban is reasonable but actually you can get licenses for things like that in some states if youre willing to go through a stringent enough background check and the right tax stamps.

Theres no issue with the well regulated militia part, that part is separated by commas from the people making it its own clause. Only people that want gun bans reinterpret it differently than it has been since day one. The same founding fathers that wrote that also vote the VA constitution which makes no mention to militias neither do many of the other ones from the states. If they wanted it to be militas only it would have not only been interpreted that way from day 1 it would have said that as its own sentence.

> All rights have limits, and you can be limited as
> to what you can possess and how much you can
> possess.

Only if the government can prove that not doing so would result in choas and that its has an overwhelming public interest in doing so. You cant even ban porn from public libraries because its considered an expression of free speech, guns are right behind free speech in the bill of rights and subjected to that kind of burden of proof for any restriction.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libtards are trying to redfine gun ownership to
> mean "hunting" and "collecting" and "target
> shooting".
>
> Can they imagine a world where people need to
> protect themselves with guns?
>
> That the public protection like the police are not
> the be all end all?

I'm not a libtard, let's start with that. Most self-defense cases are not legitimate. I respect the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is that the majority of the cases reported as "self-defense" are not.

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

> I'm not a libtard, let's start with that. Most
> self-defense cases are not legitimate. I respect
> the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is that
> the majority of the cases reported as
> "self-defense" are not.


Based on what exactly?

And, again, what is the purpose of your limit?

Why? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I'm not a libtard, let's start with that. Most
> > self-defense cases are not legitimate. I
> respect
> > the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is
> that
> > the majority of the cases reported as
> > "self-defense" are not.
>
>
> Based on what exactly?
>
> And, again, what is the purpose of your limit?

The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a price control measure. 2. Stop people from having more firepower than cops do.

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

> The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a
> price control measure. 2. Stop people from having
> more firepower than cops do.


WTF does price inflation and stockpiling have to do with gun control or public safety?

Or maybe I just misunderstood what you were suggesting but then you go on to talk about more firepower than cops. Which also is kind of silly.

And you again provided no substantiation for your claim re self-defense uses.

You're sounding more and more like you're just in favor of controls for the sake of control.

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

> The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a
> price control measure. 2. Stop people from having
> more firepower than cops do.

Number 1 isnt the governments job. If it was WWII and they needed to do it for a time to provide the necessary military supply that would be reasonable.

Number 2 is a false argument. People already can and do have more firepower than an individual officer, a lot of police departments use crappy 9mm all youd need is a 40 cal and you have more firepower. But no amount of ammo will give you more firepower than the department as a whole or swat teams.

Its also a lot like the misnomer than an assault rifle is deadlier than a normal rifle. You cant walk around with 10k round or 8k round or 5k rounds on your person so its irrelevant. Further more your own arbitrary number was 5k not a single shooting has ever approached ammo in that quantities making it an arbitrary ban which is the same thing Feinstein tried to do

Why? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> > inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a
> > price control measure. 2. Stop people from
> having
> > more firepower than cops do.
>
>
> WTF does price inflation and stockpiling have to
> do with gun control or public safety?
>
> Or maybe I just misunderstood what you were
> suggesting but then you go on to talk about more
> firepower than cops. Which also is kind of
> silly.
>
> And you again provided no substantiation for your
> claim re self-defense uses.
>
> You're sounding more and more like you're just in
> favor of controls for the sake of control.

"On both surveys combined, 2.9% of gun owners, 0.3% of those living in the home with someone who owns a gun, and 0.4% of non-gun owners reported a self defense gun use."

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

It's like oil; most of the price (recently) has been speculation.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> > > inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's
> a
> > > price control measure. 2. Stop people from
> > having
> > > more firepower than cops do.
> >
> >
> > WTF does price inflation and stockpiling have
> to
> > do with gun control or public safety?
> >
> > Or maybe I just misunderstood what you were
> > suggesting but then you go on to talk about
> more
> > firepower than cops. Which also is kind of
> > silly.
> >
> > And you again provided no substantiation for
> your
> > claim re self-defense uses.
> >
> > You're sounding more and more like you're just
> in
> > favor of controls for the sake of control.
>
> "On both surveys combined, 2.9% of gun owners,
> 0.3% of those living in the home with someone who
> owns a gun, and 0.4% of non-gun owners reported a
> self defense gun use."
>
> http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.fu
> ll
>
> It's like oil; most of the price (recently) has
> been speculation.


Sorry, pulling some random stat that mentions the term "self-defense" uses in no way supports your claim which was:

"Most self-defense cases are not legitimate. I respect the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is that the majority of the cases reported as "self-defense" are not."

And whether it's speculation or not isn't really any justification for establishing some arbitrary limit.

NRA Helps Felons Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller,
> yes, they have to a background check.
>
> However if you buy from a private seller the
> seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any
> "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show
> and sell guns with no background checks.
>
> A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon
> but doesn't have to do any background check. I
> simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.
>
> The new gun law would of closed that hole.

Possibly, but it would still have no effect. It does not prevent straw sales, which is how most of the criminals get their guns when they actually buy them and not steal them. It doesn't stop a private seller from saying "meet me in the parking lot to finalize the sale". In other words, it fails for all the reasons gun owners have been saying for years. It is a feel-good law, not an effective law.