How do we protect kids in school?

Jan 8, 2013 Full story: Ruidoso News 6,103

During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.

Full Story
factologist

Farmington, NM

#541 Mar 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not mischaracterizing your position, you have made it abundantly clear that you are all for legislating against the honest law abiding firearms owners of this country rather than spending that time, effort, and money on addressing the real problem.....the criminals and psychos that liberal laws and judges have freed to roam our streets.I'm not lying, just go back and read your own comments.......they speak for themselves. I just call 'em as I see 'em. I don't appreciate one damn bit your support of removing/restricting my constitutional rights.
Lying dog! I have never said I didn't want to spend the money or time or anything of the sort. I only said your idiotic plan wouldn't work of IDing people before they commit a crime and incarcerating them for life. And I still say that. You yourself admitted you didn't know how to implement your stupid scheme. And let me say this again to your lying face, we are doing as much as we can apparently for the money the majority of the tax payers are willing to spend.(Especially you cons). I'm not in that majority. Are you? I have always advocated for more law enforcement, judiciary, prisons, mental health care workers and institutions. And am willing to raise taxes to do it. Are you?
So stop your lying, you've been exposed.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#542 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Lying dog! I have never said I didn't want to spend the money or time or anything of the sort. I only said your idiotic plan wouldn't work of IDing people before they commit a crime and incarcerating them for life. And I still say that. You yourself admitted you didn't know how to implement your stupid scheme. And let me say this again to your lying face, we are doing as much as we can apparently for the money the majority of the tax payers are willing to spend.(Especially you cons). I'm not in that majority. Are you? I have always advocated for more law enforcement, judiciary, prisons, mental health care workers and institutions. And am willing to raise taxes to do it. Are you?
So stop your lying, you've been exposed.
No, you're the one who has been exposed and it wasn't me but rather your own leftist comments that exposed you. If you're willing to do all of that, why are you so steadfastly supporting a gun ban that will do absolutely nothing but restrict honest law abiding citizens while having no impact on the lawless? Seems you're the liar.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#543 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
The public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows.
The "public" does not get to dictate our rights. That's why the USA is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy, to protect our inalienable individual rights from mob rule. We cannot and will not let mass hysteria deprive us of our freedom.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#544 Mar 1, 2013
A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#545 Mar 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>The "public" does not get to dictate our rights. That's why the USA is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy, to protect our inalienable individual rights from mob rule. We cannot and will not let mass hysteria deprive us of our freedom.
How stupid not not realize the power of the people. No, we citizens of the US don't "dictate rights", but we do influence them. Prohibition and the repeal of prohibition are good examples of that. So was civil rights legislation. you seem to understand very little about our voting system as well.
Mass hysteria, another of your convenient lies. You advocate incarcerating people for life BEFORE they have committed a crime and you call back ground checks mass hysteria. You are just one big lie. You scream that we should follow the 2nd as the SC has said yet when they specifically say banning ARs is in line with the 2nd, you bleat "mass hysteria". Another big fat lie on your part.
STOP LYING!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#546 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>How stupid not not realize the power of the people. No, we citizens of the US don't "dictate rights", but we do influence them. Prohibition and the repeal of prohibition are good examples of that. So was civil rights legislation. you seem to understand very little about our voting system as well.
Mass hysteria, another of your convenient lies. You advocate incarcerating people for life BEFORE they have committed a crime and you call back ground checks mass hysteria. You are just one big lie. You scream that we should follow the 2nd as the SC has said yet when they specifically say banning ARs is in line with the 2nd, you bleat "mass hysteria". Another big fat lie on your part.
STOP LYING!
Wow! Talk about lies, you're on a roll. Show me where I said anything about locking people up before they commit a crime? Funny you should use a MONUMENTAL FAILURE at trying to ban something by popular demand as an example. Prohibition did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop drinking just as your gun ban will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop criminal/psycho violence. When will you get it through your thick skull that LAWS DON'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE LAWLESS.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#547 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>How stupid not not realize the power of the people. No, we citizens of the US don't "dictate rights", but we do influence them. Prohibition and the repeal of prohibition are good examples of that. So was civil rights legislation. you seem to understand very little about our voting system as well.
Mass hysteria, another of your convenient lies. You advocate incarcerating people for life BEFORE they have committed a crime and you call back ground checks mass hysteria. You are just one big lie. You scream that we should follow the 2nd as the SC has said yet when they specifically say banning ARs is in line with the 2nd, you bleat "mass hysteria". Another big fat lie on your part.
STOP LYING!
BTW, banning any individual weapon is NOT in line with the second amendment. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand? You stop lying!
factologist

Farmington, NM

#548 Mar 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens.
The use of the phrase "far more dangerous" is another lie on your part. Why don't you tell us about the real "far more dangerous" thing done by another president with his pen by signing us up to an unneeded and unrighteous 10 year war that lead to thousands of our young American men and women being killed or wounded; the loss of 100s of thousands of innocent lives; that devastated an entire country and has cost the US tax payer over a trillion $. And he did it all by telling one of the biggest lies in history.(Is that why you think it's ok to lie?) Why don't you tell us about that president's pen?
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#549 Mar 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, banning any individual weapon is NOT in line with the second amendment. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand? You stop lying!
A special interpretation? Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments are "arms" defined.

So what's with the "inividual" thing? There are certain arms we are not allowed; our rights have been infringed.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#550 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>The use of the phrase "far more dangerous" is another lie on your part. Why don't you tell us about the real "far more dangerous" thing done by another president with his pen by signing us up to an unneeded and unrighteous 10 year war that lead to thousands of our young American men and women being killed or wounded; the loss of 100s of thousands of innocent lives; that devastated an entire country and has cost the US tax payer over a trillion $. And he did it all by telling one of the biggest lies in history.(Is that why you think it's ok to lie?) Why don't you tell us about that president's pen?
Actually those aren't even my words. It's a quote from an editorial in the Peoria Journal Star. I thought it was very appropriate. Why do you always refer to what someone else did when we are talking about this president? Because a past president did something you consider wrong it is okay for this president to do something wrong? Is that how it works? That was then, this is now. Your attempts at deflection are painfully transparent.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#551 Mar 1, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
A special interpretation? Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments are "arms" defined.
So what's with the "inividual" thing? There are certain arms we are not allowed; our rights have been infringed.
Are you saying that the SCOTUS was wrong when they ruled that the second amendment is an "individual" right? That it is not therefore intended to mean "individual" arms? Of course you would use the cheap semantics argument, the word "of" isn't defined anywhere in the constitution or its amendments either and for the same reason. It's a predefined word in need of no further definition. Why do you think they call them fireARMS? Why are soldiers with "assult rifles" called men at ARMS? Why is a call to assemble for battle a "call to ARMS"? Why is using a gun or weapon to rob someone called ARMed robbery? Why is the place where all the weapons and guns kept called an ARMory? Come on! Really?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#552 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I'm proud to say, I agree with the DNC 110%. Can you say that about any political party?
Of course not. Because NO political party is 110% correct.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#553 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I'm proud to say, I agree with the DNC 110%. Can you say that about any political party?
Spoken like a true BLIND sycophant.
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#554 Mar 1, 2013
An individual right is not the same as an individual weapon. Nor is a call to arms relevant to defining the term--as it is NOT defined in the Constitution.

You don't understand what you read. Copying and pasting as if the words belong to you is easily detected....tsk tsk.
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying that the SCOTUS was wrong when they ruled that the second amendment is an "individual" right? That it is not therefore intended to mean "individual" arms? Of course you would use the cheap semantics argument, the word "of" isn't defined anywhere in the constitution or its amendments either and for the same reason. It's a predefined word in need of no further definition. Why do you think they call them fireARMS? Why are soldiers with "assult rifles" called men at ARMS? Why is a call to assemble for battle a "call to ARMS"? Why is using a gun or weapon to rob someone called ARMed robbery? Why is the place where all the weapons and guns kept called an ARMory? Come on! Really?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#555 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
The public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows.
What was the location of the those polled? What was the cross section/demographic? How many were polled?

It's not too difficult to get the result you want from a poll if you know who you are polling.{rolls eyes}
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#556 Mar 1, 2013
.........but then, I doubt you have a clue what I'm referring to. You are capable of ONLY interpreting from your perspective, unaware it lacks 90% of the picture.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#557 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> ...You scream that we should follow the 2nd as the SC has said yet when they specifically say banning ARs is in line with the 2nd,...
STOP LYING!
Please point out the part of the 2nd Amendment that says the govt has the right to ban anything???? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#558 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
For those who have the guts to watch. Responses are encouraged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2vDHqzaTL78XX
Criminal with a RAP Sheet has a gun? Thatís illegal!
Chief said criminals get guns with high cap magazines, thatís illegal too isnít it?

Solution, letís ban weapons because prosecuting criminals is too hard.

BTW, Chief told Anderson Cooper that the weapon used was an AR15 Chinese knockoff. He needs to get his facts correct since it was an AK 47 knockoff and not an AR15. BTW, AR isnít an acronym for Assault Rifle.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#559 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for you to answer the question I posted to you. You claim your daughter was qualified on a "17". And what the hell is a "17"? If you are referring to the M17, that was a rifle grenade used during WWII. If you are referring the M17-S bullpup rifle....those were never issued as rifles for the US Infantry, and only had a production run of 13 years. Or are just trying to sling shit and see what will stick?
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#560 Mar 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>The use of the phrase "far more dangerous" is another lie on your part. Why don't you tell us about the real "far more dangerous" thing done by another president with his pen by signing us up to an unneeded and unrighteous 10 year war that lead to thousands of our young American men and women being killed or wounded; the loss of 100s of thousands of innocent lives; that devastated an entire country and has cost the US tax payer over a trillion $. And he did it all by telling one of the biggest lies in history.(Is that why you think it's ok to lie?) Why don't you tell us about that president's pen?
Both sides share the blame for that blunder, we had no business going into Iraq and both parties share the fault. Politicians from both sides signed the bill taking us to war that didnít even read it. Hillary Clintonís stupid comment saying she wouldnít have signed taking us to war had she known then what she knows now about the situation! I wasnít privy to the intelligence they had at their disposal except what was in the news papers and I knew there wasnít enough evidence to take us to war in Iraq.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama to ban AR-15 bullets 12 hr Sneaky Pete 1
Kahr PM40 problems (Apr '06) Wed BFMJAM63 188
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) Wed CTM 12,176
Concealed weapons law costing Idaho colleges $3... Feb 24 Squach 25
Wisconsin CCW permit Homicide rate lower than J... Feb 22 Tory II 1
CCRKBA makes it official, backs CCW reciprocity... Feb 22 Tory II 1
Joe The Plumber Stands By Shocking Holocaust Ch... (Jun '12) Feb 18 swedenforever 6
More from around the web