US school shooting revives gun debate

[Cathouse Mouse]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the
Second Amendment adhered to individuals.

^^^ I would like for you to focus on this particular part of what you wrote ^^^

Nobody is arguing that. Not here - not in Washington D.C.

You, nor anyone else here can provide any piece of legislative proposals by any Congress member -NOR- the President that violates your right to arm yourself.

You can't do it so don't waste any time trying.

[webnewsreporter_ com]

weapons are for protection not just hunting or sport, prisoners who escape from jail or those who steal or brake into homes will have a key to get in if they know an untrained simple weapon,issued by your government, has little chance of hitting the bad guy. China and Russia want Americans to have cheap weapons to defend themselves to rely so as to depend on the government so Americans will vote to have a socialist government voted on in the middle of the night and override the the constitution as this president has been the best at doing .The Constitution is the start of freedoms ,,not the only freedom but were you cant reduce any of them from . It is were our country's laws and freedoms starts. Americans are to have arms to defend the country if called on in 24 hours ,will you show up with a silly one round powder rifle.Some people will never get the facts as we are being attacked by the news casters who have to play the game of physiological warfare that AMERICA IS FAMOUS FOR AND ITS PLAYING IT JUST AS THE BOOK SPELLS IT OUT FOR THEM TO PLAY IT OUT. WE AS AMERICANS NEED A NEW PARTY THE OLD ONES ARE OUT OF TOUCH, LETS CALL THE NEW PARTY THE''THE FREE AMERICANS PARTY ''

[Respect71]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Have to LOVE these gun gnutters who cannot seem to remember the ENTIRE second amendment.
As we all know: a partial truth is a lie.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And it still means what it means... Sad that you can't get passed your immaturity to have an honest discussion.

[The Infantile left Winged]

You liberals are the stupidest lemming morons!
==========

According to New York state Senator Greg Ball (R), the Department of Homeland Security is seeking 7,000 self-defense weapons--all of which are AR-15 variants.
These are the very weapons Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Joe Manchin (D-WV), have been telling us nobody needs for self-defense. Apparently, DHS disagrees.
As I wrote on January 14th, a "Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation" was circulated within DHS describing an AR-15 variant as "suitable for personal defense." Now, 7,000 such weapons are being sought.
DHS is also seeking 30 round magazines for use with all the rifles.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...

[barefoot2626]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And it still means what it means...

It means what it means, not what gun gnutters like you who have to cut it in half to insist it means something else.

I've pointed to Scalia's direct quotes (a direct, exact quote, word for word... something unfamiliar with the gun gnutters) which points to the CONSTITUTIONALITY of restrictions on particularly intrusive weapons (such as the list of assault weapons that have inflected such harm on Americans up to date).

Facts are obstacles to everything you utter.

[barefoot2626]

The Infantile left Winged wrote:

According to New York state Senator Greg Ball (R), the Department of Homeland Security is seeking 7,000 self-defense weapons--all of which are AR-15 variants

Senator Greg Ball (R) <-- do se the **R***

You gun gnutters are the stupidest lemming morons!

An AR-15 is an AR-15.

And it isn't a "self-defense" weapon, it is a tiny-dicked boy toy.

Only a gun gnutter would insist putting lipstick on a AR-15 pig and calling it something else.

[Respect71]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
It means what it means, not what gun gnutters like you who have to cut it in half to insist it means something else.
I've pointed to Scalia's direct quotes (a direct, exact quote, word for word... something unfamiliar with the gun gnutters) which points to the CONSTITUTIONALITY of restrictions on particularly intrusive weapons (such as the list of assault weapons that have inflected such harm on Americans up to date).
Facts are obstacles to everything you utter.

It means Americans have the right to firearms and not you, Scallia, the government, or Feinstein can do anything infringe on that right. That’s the FACT.

[Cathouse Mouse]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
It means what it means, not what gun gnutters like you who have to cut it in half to insist it means something else.
I've pointed to Scalia's direct quotes (a direct, exact quote, word for word... something unfamiliar with the gun gnutters) which points to the CONSTITUTIONALITY of restrictions on particularly intrusive weapons (such as the list of assault weapons that have inflected such harm on Americans up to date).
Facts are obstacles to everything you utter.

Those who you argue this issue with have been reduced to a small group. I have recently dubbed them "Cling-Ons" in concert with their backwoods stubborness to heed to the will of the vast majority of the nation concerning gun safety ... and of course, the fitting terminology, "Cling on to their God and their guns".

Thusd, "Cling-Ons" seems to be the appropriate term to describe this group of neandrathals, because "neandrathal" would undoubtably be a word they would have to Google before understanding my point in general.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Respect71]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Those who you argue this issue with have been reduced to a small group. I have recently dubbed them "Cling-Ons" in concert with their backwoods stubborness to heed to the will of the vast majority of the nation concerning gun safety ... and of course, the fitting terminology, "Cling on to their God and their guns".
Thusd, "Cling-Ons" seems to be the appropriate term to describe this group of neandrathals, because "neandrathal" would undoubtably be a word they would have to Google before understanding my point in general.
Wouldn't you agree?

Insults do not infringe on that right either… When you guys grow up maybe you’ll understand.

[Rico from East Los II]

just another guy wrote:

<quoted text>
How can you question it if the West Point Naval Academy says it?
Dude you are a dipshit.

Like the study says.... right wingnuts are quick to attack muslims for allegations of terrorism by muslims even when no proof exist.... but when questions arise about rightwing extremists that represent terroristic threats:“[T]he Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement.”... you guys immediately claim to be the victims of an overbearing government so it's naturall for a right wing nut like you to disregard facts that your ideology is teetering on terrorism.

So i'm sorry to inform you... if West Point is looking into right wing radicalism in the USA... they're doing it for a reason as this Nation has had more right wing radical terrorism than we get muslim terrorism.

It's a simple fact of life... your kind of people should be tossed into Guantanamo Bay and the key thrown away!!

You can now call me all the cliche hate names that's typical to you right wing knuckle draggers.

[Vance1]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
That being said, the Second Amendment stands.

never mind Earl, he is drunk on that cheap beer once again
and kneeling infront of his Barack Oh bama poster.

[Vance1]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Senator Greg Ball (R) <-- do se the **R***
You gun gnutters are the stupidest lemming morons!
An AR-15 is an AR-15.
And it isn't a "self-defense" weapon, it is a tiny-dicked boy toy.
Only a gun gnutter would insist putting lipstick on a AR-15 pig and calling it something else.

we are all indeed thankful that actual felon's like yourself cant own guns.

Praise the Lord!!!

[sociopathic Liberals]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Senator Greg Ball (R) <-- do se the **R***
You gun gnutters are the stupidest lemming morons!
An AR-15 is an AR-15.
And it isn't a "self-defense" weapon, it is a tiny-dicked boy toy.
Only a gun gnutter would insist putting lipstick on a AR-15 pig and calling it something else.

You are a... hopeless waste of protoplasm.
...said of someone who repeatedly does things so dumb you can hardly believe it.

[sociopathic Liberals]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
donglickers is so stupid.

Yes, you most certainly are!!!

[Say the Truth]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Senator Greg Ball (R) <-- do se the **R***
You gun gnutters are the stupidest lemming morons!
An AR-15 is an AR-15.
And it isn't a "self-defense" weapon, it is a tiny-dicked boy toy.
Only a gun gnutter would insist putting lipstick on a AR-15 pig and calling it something else.

Unhide your ISP, chickens4it.

[Respect71]

Rico from East Los II wrote:

<quoted text>
Like the study says.... right wingnuts are quick to attack muslims for allegations of terrorism by muslims even when no proof exist.... but when questions arise about rightwing extremists that represent terroristic threats:“[T]he Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement.”... you guys immediately claim to be the victims of an overbearing government so it's naturall for a right wing nut like you to disregard facts that your ideology is teetering on terrorism.
So i'm sorry to inform you... if West Point is looking into right wing radicalism in the USA... they're doing it for a reason as this Nation has had more right wing radical terrorism than we get muslim terrorism.
It's a simple fact of life... your kind of people should be tossed into Guantanamo Bay and the key thrown away!!
You can now call me all the cliche hate names that's typical to you right wing knuckle draggers.

“Like the study says.... right wingnuts are quick to attack muslims for allegations of terrorism by muslims even when no proof exist....” You mean like Munich Massacre" 1973, Grand Mosque Seizure 1979, Approx. 250 Dead, 600 wounded, April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing, Beirut, Lebanon by the Islamic Jihad Organization, 63 dead, 120 injured, World Trade Center bombing, in New York City in 1993 6 killed, 1993 Bombay bombings. Mumbai, India. 257 dead, 713 injured, 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured, 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured, USS Cole bombing at a Yemen port, October 12, 2000. 17 American sailors were killed, 39 injured, 11 September 2001 – 4 planes hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers: two planes crashed into World Trade Center and one into the The Pentagon. Nearly 3000 dead, or the Madrid train bombings 2004,191 killed, 1460 injured, and this is a VERY SHORT LIST… Based on the evidence you have ZERO credibility and anything you say after your ridiculous,“allegations of terrorism by muslims even when no proof exist” Comment is null and void.

[Cathouse Mouse]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Insults do not infringe on that right either… When you guys grow up maybe you’ll understand.

It troubles me that you feel offended by anything I've said. You should go out and buy yourself another gun, it'll make you feel better ..... and safer.

[Respect71]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
It troubles me that you feel offended by anything I've said. You should go out and buy yourself another gun, it'll make you feel better ..... and safer.

LOL it troubles you... and trust me you don't even come close to offending me. Just pointing out your poor tactics.

[Cathouse Mouse]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL it troubles you... and trust me you don't even come close to offending me. Just pointing out your poor tactics.

I have no "tactics". Nervous people are found to be suspicious characters.

[sociopathic Liberals]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL it troubles you... and trust me you don't even come close to offending me. Just pointing out your poor tactics.

It is just the liberal tactic.
==========

Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" for dummies.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.(Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

They are nothing but programmed useful idiots.