Guns: Put Up or Shut Up!

[The Truth]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
The US Constitution is a living document that can and should be changed.

Then try to change it. I suggest that you, Dumbo, write the Amendment to the Constitution and try to get Congress to adopt it. But until then, we all live under the law of the land. That law gives every citizen the right to be armed.

[Amused Slew]

We're discussing changes, we ALL know what time the Constitution was written, moron.... Saying the law exists is pretty stupid, unless someone you imagined said it didn't...Hitler, right ???

[Wade Gustafson]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
The US Constitution is a living document that can and should be changed.

You are correct, the U.S. Constitution so far has 27 amendments. I suggest the house democrats introduce a bill to amend the 2nd Amendment. Simultaneously, democrat state legislators in all 50 states should campaign for a change in the 2nd Amendment. Anything less is hypocritical.

[Consistent]

You right wing extremists would have a field day with that.

[Amused Slew]

Wade Gustafson wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct, the U.S. Constitution so far has 27 amendments. I suggest the house democrats introduce a bill to amend the 2nd Amendment. Simultaneously, democrat state legislators in all 50 states should campaign for a change in the 2nd Amendment. Anything less is hypocritical.

Since you "suggest it", your party should campaign for a change in the 2nd Amendment. Anything less is hypocritical.

Nice "game", but "normal" kids outgrew it, in preschool.

[Amused Slew]

DSM Local wrote:

<quoted text>
why didn't they protect you too slew

Same reason wing nuts underfund schools and are cheap on their taxes, but not churches... Bad priorities, by gun nuts... See, if nobody had guns, NEITHER would need gun protection, right ? Give up your guns or you hate kids...

[The Truth]

Amused Slew wrote:

<quoted text>Same reason wing nuts underfund schools and are cheap on their taxes, but not churches... Bad priorities, by gun nuts... See, if nobody had guns, NEITHER would need gun protection, right ? Give up your guns or you hate kids...

Carry to protect your family and children. Otherwise you are Slewage and hate children.

Obama has blood on his hands from letting the funding to protect school children lapse.

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons...

Beneath the expressions of grief, sorrow and disbelief over the Connecticut school massacre lies an uneasy truth in Washington: over the last few years the Obama administration and Congress quietly let federal funding for several key school security programs lapse in the name of budget savings.

Government officials told the Washington Guardian on Friday night that two Justice Department programs that had provided more than $200 million to schools for training, security equipment and police resources over the last decade weren't renewed in 2011 and 2012, and that a separate program that provided $800 million to put police officers inside the schools was ended a few years earlier.

[Amused Slew]

Gee, it says congress and which party is for cutting spending AGAIN ???

If fact, didn't RawMoney EXPRESSLY TALK about cutting Police, firefighters, and teachers ???

For the first time in 98 years, the 330,000-member Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) will not endorse a candidate for president this year. The FOP supported the Republican candidate for President in 2008, 2004, and 2000, and its non-endorsement is seen as a refutation of Mitt Romney.

Stick with your childish misspelling, it's all you've got.... Unless, you count stupidity in SPADES ~!

[Robert]

Consistent wrote:

Guns: Put Up or Shut Up!
by Geoffrey R. Stone.
Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago
In 1990, 78 percent of Americans thought we needed stricter gun laws. Today, only 44 percent of Americans think so. What has caused this dramatic shift in public opinion?
It is not because more people now own guns. In 1990, 48 percent of Americans had guns in their homes. Today, 45 percent of Americans do.
It is not because gun deaths are no longer a problem. Since 1990, a quarter of a million Americans have been killed by guns.
Why, then, has there been so precipitous a decline in the percentage of Americans who support stricter guns laws?
The answer lies largely in the democratic process. Those who oppose stricter gun laws have organized, they have aggressively promoted their positions, and they have been extraordinarily effective in electing candidates who support their policies and defeating those who oppose them.
The nation's largest and most potent anti-gun control organization, the National Rifle Association, increased its annual revenues from 1990 to the present by approximately 400 percent. It now has an annual operating budget approaching $300 million and 4.3 million dues-paying members.
The largest and most potent pro-gun control organization, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, has an annual budget of approximately $6 million and fewer than 30,000 dues-paying members.
The National Rifle Association spent more than $10 million in the 2012 election. The Brady Center spent less than $10,000.
These numbers bear repeating: The NRA has 140 times more dues-paying members than the Brady Center and it spent 1,000 times more money than the Brady Center in the 2012 election.
Is it any wonder, then, that those who support stricter gun laws are losing? This is, after all, a democracy. Advocacy, debate and politics matter. As Justice Louis Brandeis observed more than 85 years ago: "Those who won our independence believed" that the best "protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine" is freedom of speech, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people," and that "public discussion is a political duty."
That is why the NRA is winning. Their members are not "inert." They oppose and oppose and oppose what they deem to be "noxious doctrine."
Of course, the NRA does get a ton of money from gun manufacturers and vendors (including those who manufacture assault weapons and high-capacity magazines), such as Arsenal, Beretta, Browing, Brownells, DPMS Panther Arms, Glock, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger & Co, and Winchester.
But the majority of the NRA's funds still come from ordinary citizens -- from its 4.3 million members.
Those who want to see more rational gun laws in the United States have to do more than complain about the NRA. We have to ask ourselves: Do we care enough about this issue to DO something about it? If we don't, then we can be sure there will be millions more needless and heartbreaking funerals in the decades to come.
Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-ston...

How much did GE spend?

[Lowell]

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
How much did GE spend?

How much did the Obama Administration waste on ObamaPhones to buy votes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I'll help with that question:$1,400,000,000.

http://teapartyatperrysburg.blogspot.com/2012...

And Obama CUT school security funding by $800,000,000 in 2010. Oh heck who cares about the kids security?

Obama's handelers know they MUST effectivey blame the Shandy Hook disaster on the gun used.

For IF the issue of him cutting school security funding ever came into the spotlight President Obama would really lose ALL creditability.

[Consistent]

Lowell wrote:

<quoted text>
How much did the Obama Administration waste on ObamaPhones to buy votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I'll help with that question:$1,400,000,000.
http://teapartyatperrysburg.blogspot.com/2012...
And Obama CUT school security funding by $800,000,000 in 2010. Oh heck who cares about the kids security?
Obama's handelers know they MUST effectivey blame the Shandy Hook disaster on the gun used.
For IF the issue of him cutting school security funding ever came into the spotlight President Obama would really lose ALL creditability.

Pretty early to be THAT drunk, isn't it, Schmahl?

[Consistent]

And the "Obama cut school scurity funding" story is false as well. So is the "Obamaphone story". So is most of what you post.

[The Truth]

Consistent wrote:

And the "Obama cut school scurity funding" story is false as well. So is the "Obamaphone story". So is most of what you post.

Anytime you disagree with something or someone, you make the stupid cliam about something not being true. Yet you NEVER provide proof to back up your claims. You are a liar and a sleeze bag.

[Consistent]

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Anytime you disagree with something or someone, you make the stupid cliam about something not being true. Yet you NEVER provide proof to back up your claims. You are a liar and a sleeze bag.

Your rants would be much more credible if you learned how to spell - or at least how to use spell check.

[The Truth]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Your rants would be much more credible if you learned how to spell - or at least how to use spell check.

You are a lying POS who spews garbage you can never back up with facts. I'll take a typo or two over flat out lying any day of the week.

[Consistent]

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a lying POS who spews garbage you can never back up with facts. I'll take a typo or two over flat out lying any day of the week.

Then why do you lie so much?

[The Truth]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why do you lie so much?

Like has been shown time and time again on here, you are a name jacking, lying POS.

[Consistent]

Then why do you find it necessary to lie so much?

[The Truth]

Consistent wrote:

Then why do you find it necessary to lie so much?

Each time you post under someone else's name, you lie. You POS.

[Consistent]

Sorry, the rules clearly allow anyone to use an unregistered name. Next?

The name you are using now is registered, btw. To someone else.